HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/12/2025 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
August 12, 2025 Tuesday 3:30 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in
person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas.
Council Chambers
451 South State Street, Room 315
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
3:30 PM Work Session
Or immediately following the 2:00 PM
Community Reinvestment Agency Meeting
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: 08:41:31
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 ~ 3:45 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.Resolution: Capital Improvement Program Follow-Up ~ 4:00 p.m.
60 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about the City's Capital Improvement
Program (CIP), which involves the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings,
parks, streets or other City-owned physical structures. Generally, projects have a useful
life of at least five years and cost $50,000 or more. The Council approves debt service
and overall CIP funding in June with the annual budget process, while project-specific
funding is approved by September 1 of the same calendar year.
For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY26CIP.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Thursday, June 5, 2025; Tuesday, July 1, 2025; Tuesday, July 8, 2025; and
Tuesday, August 12, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 15, 2025 and Tuesday, June 10, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 20, 2025; Tuesday, June 3, 2025;
and Tuesday, July 8, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 10, 2025 and Tuesday, August 19, 2025
3.Informational: Safe Streets Action Plan Kickoff ~ 5:00 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing on the Safe Streets Action Plan (Vision Zero), which is
designed as a roadmap to reach zero traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2035. Some of
the initiatives discussed in these documents are tied to CIP projects that the Council is
currently discussing.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 12, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
4.Ordinance: Amending the Administrative Hearing Process ~ 5:20 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend various sections of
the Salt Lake City Code to update the general administrative hearing process for civil
violations. The process would replace the current Small Claims Court process for formal
appeals and create a consistent practice for appeal processing. The proposal also includes
adding a fee for formal administrative appeals. The process will apply to the proposed
ordinance for parties, gatherings, and events heard on July 8, 2025.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 12, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 12, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, August 19, 2025 at 6 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 19, 2025
5.Resolution: Central Wasatch Commission - Addition of the
City of Holladay ~ 5:40 p.m.
10 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution that would admit the City of
Holladay as a member of the Central Wasatch Commission(CWC). The CWC is charged
with implementing the Mountain Accord, and, in particular the major values of
environment, recreation, transportation, and economy that are inherent in the Central
Wasatch Mountains.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 12, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 19, 2025
6.Board Appointment: Disciplinary Appeals Hearing Officer –
Heidi Alder ~ 5:50 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Heidi Aler prior to considering appointment as a Disciplinary
Appeals Hearing Officer for a term ending August 12, 2027.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 12, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 12, 2025
7.Resolution: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately
2157 South Lincoln Street Extension Written Briefing
-
The Council will receive a written briefing about a resolution extending the time period
for satisfying the conditions set forth in Ordinance No.78 of 2023 rezoning the property
at approximately 2157 South Lincoln Street from RB (Residential/Business District) to
CSHBD2 (Sugar House Business District). The deadline extension would give the
property owner an additional six months to satisfy the conditions of the ordinance.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 12, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, August 12, 2025
Standing Items
8.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair -
-
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
9.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.
10.Tentative Closed Session -
-
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental
health of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a
water right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent
requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 7, 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.
Administrative
Updates
August 12, 2025
www.slc.gov/feedback/
Regularly updated with highlighted
ways to engage with the City.
Community Engagement Highlights
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com
Planning
Thriving in PlacePublic Lands
Fleet Block
•Survey open! August 11-August 31st
•Community meetings happening soon
Glendale Regional Park
•Grand opening of pickleball was July 30th
Liberty Park
•Rotary play area closure – August 19 – Summer 2026
Allen Park
•Water/Fire safety improvements
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com
Planning
Thriving in PlaceArts Council & Mayor’s Office
Out of the Blue Community Engagement
•New Whale Mural
Love Your Block
•32 applied with 6 awarded
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com
Planning
Thriving in PlaceCommunity Events - Highlights
Event Date Location
Kensington Street Fair 8/16 30 E. Kensington
2025 Bonnie Ball 8/23 Neighborhood Hive – 2065 E 2100 S.
Avenues Street Fair 9/13 8th Ave between D & K
9th & 9th Street Festival 9/20 900 East 900 South
Groove in the Grove 9/24 Pioneer Police Precinct -
1040 West 700 South
Marmalade Jam Fest 9/27 Marmalade Library
Wasatch Hollow Fest 10/11 1500 East 1500 South
Homeless Resource Center
Utilization:
Aug 4th-8th: 96.1%
https://endutahhomelessness.org/daily-bed-availability/
Encampment Impact Mitigation/
Rapid Intervention:
•EIM- Gladiola St
•RIT- Victory Rd, Warm Springs
Park
Resource Fair:
Sept. 12 @ Library Square
Homelessness
Update
Shelters: 801-990-9999
Additional System Information:
Salt Lake Valley Coalition to
End Homelessness (SLVCEH)
endutahhomelessness.org/
salt-lake-valley
Utah Office of Homeless
Services (OHS)
jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/
index.html
Homeless Winter Emergency Services:
•Submitted by Task Force Aug 1
•Expect response by the end of Aug
Transformative Campus:
•State OHS evaluating land
•OHS still needs additional capitol and
operations funding
Mobile Hygiene Pilot:
•Awarded to local non-profit
•More info ASAP
Community Corner:
•Homeless Services lot: 200 s. 700 w.
•Mon-Wed 1pm-4:30pm Aug- Oct
•HEART administers program
e812a9c3-7e96-
441b-a724-
daec800bb608
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
WWW.SLC.GOV/COUNCIL
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY26CIP
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Kate Werrett, Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:August 12, 2025
RE:FY2026 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
CIP BUDGET BOOK PAGES:
-5-13: Proposed projects summary table &
funding sources
-14-15: Lists projects not recommended for funding
-19-24: Identifies existing bonds paid from CIP & other ongoing obligations
-27-58: Recommended General Fund CIP projects details
-61-128: Enterprise fund (Airport, Golf, Public Utilities, and CRA) capital project details
NEW INFORMATION
At the July 1 and July 8 briefings, the Council continued reviewing projects in the CIP Funding Log (Attachment
2) and raised project-specific questions. The Administration’s responses are included as Attachment 7.
Additionally, on July 8th, the Council approved corrections to the CIP Funding Log for CPTED lighting and
removing the debt service for a not-yet-issued Public Lands Bond.
At the August 12th briefing, the Council may wish to identify any priority projects without funding
recommendations or where additional funding is proposed, and any final project-specific questions. A fifth
briefing is scheduled for August 19th during the Council Work Session. August 19th is the last scheduled Formal
Meeting for the Council to adopt the CIP budget before the September 1 deadline under state law.
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
At the July 1 and July 8 briefings, the Council may wish to identify any priority projects that do not have funding
recommendations or where additional funding is proposed, and any project-specific questions. Responsive
information and funding options may be gathered so the Council could balance the CIP project-specific budgets
on August 12 or 19. As part of the annual budget adoption vote on June 10, the Council made this change to the
Mayor’s Recommended Budget for FY2026 CIP:
- Increased the recaptured funds from completed projects and unfinished projects older than
three years by an additional $704,490. The Administration suggested using half of the additional
recapture ($352,245) for Public Lands capital maintenance in addition to the already recommended
$195,573 and applying the remaining $352,245 towards CIP Project #5, Street Reconstruction 2026,
which increases the total funding recommendation to $4,742,921. By a straw poll at the June 5th work
session, the Council agreed to the Public Lands capital maintenance increase and expressed tentative
agreement with applying the remaining $352,245 towards CIP Project #5.
Two Additional changes are proposed to the FY2026 CIP. To allow the Administration to move forward with
their projects and reflect corrected Funding Log details, the Administration proposes that the Council adopt
Project Timeline:
Budget Hearings: May 20 & June 3, 2025
CIP Public Hearing: July 8, 2025
1st Briefing: June 5, 2025
2nd Briefing: July 1, 2025
3rd Briefing: July 8, 2025
4th Briefing: August 12, 2025
Potential Adoption Vote: August 19, 2025
Note: The Council approves debt service and overall
CIP funding in June with the annual budget. Project
specific funding is approved later (by September 1).
Page | 3
these two corrections at the July 8th meeting. All other CIP funding will be discussed at the briefings as
scheduled and approved at the August 19th Council Meeting.
CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) Lighting Transfer: Within the Non-
Departmental section of the Mayor’s Recommended Budget, a proposed $300,000 transfer to CIP was
included for CPTED lighting to add lighting along the Jordan River trail. This transfer was not included in
the Key Changes document or the CIP Funding Log. While the Key Changes document will need to be
updated with a budget amendment, Council may approve the $300,000 CEPTED funding request at their
July 8 Council Meeting.
Removal of Debt Service Funding for 2 nd Tranche of Public Lands Bond: The Administration
found that the debt service amount for the not yet issued 2nd Public Lands bond tranche was included in the
FY2026 Key Changes as a revenue source, although it should not have been included because the Council
has not yet approved moving ahead with the second issuance. Due to this error, the funding was also added
to the CIP book. To amend, the CIP General Fund transfer and debt service payments will need to be
reduced by $2,827,645. The CIP log and the CIP book need this debt service removed before CIP adoption.
NOTE: GO bonds are not paid from CIP because they are funded through a separate, dedicated voter-
approved property tax, and are therefore tracked/accounted for in a separate fund.
CIP Debt Load Projections Chart
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Page | 4
Each year, the Council appropriates overall funding for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and approves
debt payments and ongoing obligations as part of the annual budget in June. Over the summer, the Council
reviews individual projects and per state law must approve project-specific funding by September 1. CIP is an
open and competitive process where residents, local organizations, and City departments submit project
applications. The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident advisory board
reviews the applications in public meetings and makes funding recommendations to the Mayor and Council. The
Mayor provides a second set of funding recommendations. The Council considers both funding
recommendations and ultimately decides on project-specific funding. Funding for capital improvements
sometimes occurs in mid-year budget amendments, but the annual CIP process is the Council’s largest annual
opportunity to fund large public construction projects. This report provides an overview of the proposed General
Fund CIP budget for FY2026 and policy questions.
Overview of the FY2026 CIP Proposed Budget
Page | 5
$99 Thousand Increase in General Funds—The General Fund transfer is the most flexible funding source
available for new projects. The Council has restricted Funding Our Future to five critical need areas, which is not
part of this amount.
$6.25 Million Increase in Class C (Gas Tax) – A significant portion of this increase is due to the Finance
Department conducting a reconciliation of the existing Class C CIP project funds. The majority of the additional
$6.25 million was identified in the Class C cash reserves/fund balance and is a one-time increase to CIP funding.
$5.9 Million Increase in Impact Fees—The proposed CIP budget includes $9.7 million in street and park
impact fees.
$3.6 Million Recaptured Funds from Completed Projects and Unfinished Projects Older than
Three Years
Administration completed a review of all CIP projects and recaptured $2.9 million in
prior CIP funding to rescope for other projects. These funds come from completed projects, dormant CIP
projects older than three years with budgetary balances, and earthquake repair insurance refunds for public
buildings. See Attachment 5 for the Administration’s review of CIP funding usage. After finalizing the CDCIP
and Mayor CIP recommendations, an additional $704,490 was recaptured. The Administration suggests using
half of the additional recapture ($352,245) for Public Lands capital maintenance in addition to the already
recommended $195,573 and applying the remaining $352,245 towards CIP Project #5, Street Reconstruction
2026, which increases the total funding recommendation to $4,742,921.
$2.6 Million Increase in County 1/4¢ and 5th 5th Sales Tax for Transportation – The County 1/4¢ and
5th 5th Sales Tax are combined due to their shared eligibility requirements. These funds are available for
transportation projects per state law. $2.5 million of the FY26 increase is from the existing County 1/4¢ fund
balance. Recently, the County approved a 5th 5th sales tax which goes into effect July 1, 2025, and is projected to
provide an ongoing $600,000 for CIP projects.
$13 Million Debt and Lease Payments – $13,077,844 of the ongoing General Fund transfer to CIP
(including Funding Our Future dollars) is needed to cover debt and rental payments.
Differences between CDCIP Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
Mayor recommends additional funding to projects recommended by the CDCIP Board
Mayor recommended funding capital maintenance projects without CDCIP Board funding recommendations
Page | 6
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Differences between CDCIP Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations – The Council
may wish to ask the Administration about the different funding recommendations from the CDCIP
residents advisory board and the Mayor as summarized in the two tables earlier in this report.
2.Resources to Support Constituent Applications – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration the potential of a constituent-specific CIP project funding allotment rather than
grouping them with the city department applications. At the May 20 Public Hearing, some constituents
and a CDCIP Board Member requested some kind of division between the funding to allow for more
constituent applications to be supported.
3.Project #57: Civic Campus and Green Loop Implementation – The Council may wish to have a
follow-up briefing to more fully understand the project deliverables of the $2.9 million park impact fee
allocation for the Green Loop and Civic Campus, including the estimated timeframe.
4.Capital Asset Plan Status Update – The Council may wish to request a briefing for an update on the
City’s Capital Asset Plan. The FY2024 non-departmental budget transferred $350,000 to IMS for
Capital Asset Planning software to facilitate this effort. See Attachment 6 for the Council’s potential
policy goals, metrics, and requests from a briefing in 2019.
5.Inflationary Price Increases and the Cost Overrun Account – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration how inflationary price increases have impacted departments utilizing the CIP Cost
Overrun Account, and if additional funding may be needed to avoid project scope reductions. The
Council could also re-evaluate the funding level for the account and/or the formula for the maximum
amounts a project may receive, which hasn’t been updated since 2004 (see section 11 of Attachment 1).
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Definition of a CIP Project
As defined in the Council-adopted 2017 Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies Resolution (Attachment
1), a CIP project must “involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other
physical structures, … have a useful life of five or more years, … have a cost of $50,000 or more, … or significant
functionality can be demonstrated…such as software.” The Council also set a three-year spending deadline as
part of the guiding policies. CIP accounts older than three years are periodically reviewed for recapture from
projects that finished under budget or were not pursued.
Comparison of CIP Project Requests by Year and Type
This chart was prepared by Council staff as a comparison of total project requests on the CIP funding log since
FY2017, and whether the application is from a constituent or internal to a City department. The FY2026 CIP
cycle has 60 project requests. FY2021 had the fewest with 19 project requests only from departments (it was
intentionally an “abbreviated CIP cycle” per the Administration at the time). FY2023 had the most with 90
project requests.
Page | 6
Note: this chart only includes funding requested in the competitive portion of CIP so debt service and ongoing
obligations are generally not reflected in the above figures
Cost Overrun Account
The FY2026 CIP budget includes $223,171 of additional Cost Overrun funding. The Council established this
account for projects that experience costs slightly higher than budgeted. A formula determines how much
additional funding may be pulled from the Cost Overrun account depending on the total Council-approved
budget. See Section 11 of Attachment 1 for the formula. This process allows the Administration to add funding to
a project without returning to the Council in a budget amendment. A written notification to the Council on uses
is required. The purpose is to allow projects to proceed with construction instead of delaying projects until the
Council can act on a budget amendment which typically takes a few months.
1.5% for New Art and Maintenance of Existing Artworks
The annual report required by ordinance regarding the maintenance of City artworks in the past fiscal year and
planned for the next year will be transmitted to the Council in the autumn. This timing is after the annual budget
is adopted so the amount of funding available in CIP overall allows the 1.5% to be calculated and inform how
those funds would be used.
Salt Lake City Code, Chapter 2.30, established the Percent for Art Fund and designates roles for the Art Design
Board and Arts Council related to artist selection, project review and placement. The Public Art Program also
oversees projects with funding from the Airport and CRA. In April 2021, the Council amended Chapter 2.30 to
make several changes to the ordinance including an increase from 1% to 1.5% of ongoing unrestricted CIP
funding for art. There is no ceiling so the Council could approve funding for art above 1.5%. The ordinance also
sets a range of 10%-20% for how much of the resulting annual funding is allocated to maintenance (as opposed
to new artworks). This section of the ordinance also states that before funds are deposited into the separate
public art maintenance fund a report from the Administration will be provided to the Council identifying works
of art that require maintenance and estimated costs. This created the first ongoing dedicated funding for
conservation and maintenance of the City’s public art collection consisting of over 270 pieces and counting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies Resolution 29 of 2017
2. FY2026 CIP Funding Log
3. Mayor's Recommended CIP Book FY2026
4. Overview of CIP Major Funding Sources
5. Status of Approved CIP Projects and Recapture Details for Projects Older than Three Years
6. Capital Asset Plan (CAP) Council Requests from January 2019
7. Administration Responses to Council CIP Questions
Page | 7
ACRONYMS
CAP – Capital Asset Plan (a five-year CIP plan)
CDBG – Community Development Block Grants
CDCIP – Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
CPTED – Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
ESCO – Energy Service Company
FY – Fiscal Year
GO Bond – General Obligation Bond
RESOLUTION NO . _29_0F 2017
(Salt Lake City Council capital and debt management policies.)
R 17-1
R 17-13
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council" or "Council") demonstrated its
commitment to improving the City's Capital Improvement Program in order to better address the
deferred and long-term infrastructure needs of Salt Lake City; and
WHEREAS, the analysis of Salt Lake City's General Fund Capital Improvement
Program presented by Citygate Associates in February 1999, recommended that the Council
review and update the capital policies of Salt Lake Corporation ("City") in order to provide
direction to the capital programming and budgeting process and adopt and implement a formal
comprehensive debt policy and management plan; and
WHEREAS, the City's Capital Improvement Program and budgeting practices have
evolved since 1999 and the City Council wishes to update the capital and debt management
policies by updating and restating such policies in their entirety to better reflect current
practices; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to improve transparency of funding opportunities
across funding sources including General Fund dollars, impact fees, Class C (gas tax) funds,
Redevelopment Agency funds, Public Utilities funds, repurposing old Capital Improvement
Program funds and other similar funding sources.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City,
Utah:
That the City Council has determined that the following capital and debt management
policies shall guide the Council as they continue to address the deferred and long-term
infrastructure needs within Salt Lake City:
Capital Policies
1. Capital Project Definition-The Council intends to define a capital project as follows:
"Capital improvements involve the construction, purchase or renovation of
buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures. A capital improvement must
have a useful life of five or more years. A capital improvement is not a recurring
capital outlay item (such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine) or a maintenance
expense (such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches). In order to be
considered a capital project, a capital improvement must also have a cost of
$50,000 or more unless such capital improvement's significant functionality can
be demonstrated to warrant its inclusion as a capital project (such as software).
Acquisition of equipment is not considered part of a capital project unless such
acquisition of equipment is an integral part of the cost of the capital project."
2. Annual Capital Budget Based on 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan-The Council requests that
the Mayor's Recommended Annual Capital Budget be developed based upon the 10-Year
Capital Facilities Plan and be submitted each fiscal year to the City Council for consideration
as part of the Mayor 's Recommended Budget no later than the first Tuesday of May.
3. Multiyear Financial Forecasts-The Council requests that the Administration :
a. Prepare multi-year revenue and expenditure forecasts that correspond to the capital
program period;
b . Prepare an analysis of the City's financial condition , debt service levels within the capital
improvement budget, and capacity to finance future capital projects; and
c . Present this information to the Council in conjunction with the presentation of each one
year capital budget.
4. Annual General Fund Transfer to CIP Funding Goal-Allocation of General Fund revenues
for capital improvements on an annual basis will be determined as a percentage of General
Fund revenue . The Council has a goal that no less than nine percent (9%) of ongoing General
Fund revenues be invested annually in the Capital Improvement Fund.
5. Maintenance Standard-The Council intends that the City will maintain its physical assets at
a level adequate to protect the City's capital investment and to minimize future maintenance
and replacement costs.
6 . Capital Project Prioritization-The Council intends to give priority consideration to projects
that:
a. Preserve and protect the health and safety of the community;
b. Are mandated by the state and/or federal government; and
c. Provide for the renovation of existing facilities resulting in a preservation of the
community's prior investment, in decreased operating costs or other significant cost
savings , or in improvements to the environmental quality of the City and its
neighborhoods.
7. External Partnerships -All other considerations being equal, the Council intends to give fair
consideration to projects where there is an opportunity to coordinate with other agencies ,
establish a public/ private partnership, or secure grant funding .
8. Aligning Project Cost Estimates and Funding-The Council intends to follow a guideline of
approving construction funding for a capital project in the fiscal year immediately following
the project's design wherever possible. Project costs become less accurate as more time
passes. The City can avoid expenses for re-estimating project costs by funding capital
projects in a timely manner.
9. Advisory Board Funding Recommendations-The Council intends that all capital projects be
evaluated and prioritized by the Community Development and Capital Improvement
Program Advisory Board . The resulting recommendations shall be provided to the Mayor ,
and shall be included along with the Mayor 's funding recommendations in conjunction with
the Annual Capital budget transmittal , as noted in Paragraph two above.
10. Prioritize Funding Projects in the 10-Year Plan-The Council does not intend to fund any
project that has not been included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan for at least one (1)
year prior to proposed funding, unless extenuating circumstances are adequately identified.
11. Cost Overrun Process -The Council requests that any change order to any capital
improvement project follow the criteria established in Resolution No. 65 of2004 which
reads as follows:
a. "The project is under construction and all other funding options and/ or methods
have been considered and it has been determined that additional funding is still
required.
b. Cost overrun funding will be approved based on the following formula:
1. 20% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets of $100,000 or less;
ii. 15% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets between $100,001 and $250,000;
iii. 10% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets over $250,000 with a maximum overrun cost of $1oo,ooo.
c. The funds are not used to pay additional City Engineering fees.
d. The Administration will submit a written notice to the City Council detailing the
additional funding awarded to projects at the time of administrative approval.
e. If a project does not meet the above mentioned criteria the request for additional
funding will be submitted as part of the next scheduled budget opening.
However, if due to timing constraints the cost overrun cannot be reasonably
considered as part of a regularly scheduled budget opening, the Administration
will prepare the necessary paperwork for review by the City Council at its next
regularly scheduled meeting."
12. Recapture Funds from Completed Capital Projects-The Council requests that the
Administration include in the first budget amendment each year those Capital Improvement
Program Fund accounts where the project has been completed and a project balance remains.
It is the Council's intent that all account balances from closed projects be recaptured and
placed in the CIP Cost Overrun Contingency Account for the remainder of the fiscal year, at
which point any remaining amounts will be transferred to augment the following fiscal year's
General Fund ongoing allocation.
13. Recapture Funds from Unfinished Capital Projects-Except for situations in which
significant progress is reported to the Council, it is the Council's intent that all account
balances from unfinished projects older than three years be moved out of the specific project
account to the CIP Fund Balance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, account balances for bond
financed projects and outside restricted funds (which could include grants, SAA or other
restricted funds) shall not be moved out of the specific project account.
14. Surplus Land Fund within CIP Fund Balance -Revenues received from the sale of real
property will go to the unappropriated balance of the Capital Projects Fund and the revenue
will be reserved to purchase real property unless extenuating circumstances warrant a
different use. It is important to note that collateralized land cannot be sold.
15 . Transparency of Ongoing Costs Created by Capital Projects-Any long-term fiscal impact to
the General Fund from a capital project creating ongoing expenses such as maintenance,
changes in electricity /utility usage, or additional personnel will be included in the CIP
funding log and project funding request. Similarly, capital projects that decrease ongoing
expenses will detail potential savings in the CIP funding log.
16. Balance Budget without Defunding or Delaying Capital Projects -Whenever possible,
capital improvement projects should neither be delayed nor eliminated to balance the
General Fund budget.
17. Identify Sources when Repurposing Old Capital Project Funds-Whenever the
Administration proposes repurposing funds from completed capital projects the source(s)
should be identified including the project name, balance of remaining funds, whether the
project scope was reduced, and whether funding needs related to the original project exist.
18. Identify Capital Project Details -For each capital project, the capital improvement projects
funding log should identify:
a. The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board's
funding recommendations,
b. The Administration's funding recommendations,
c. The project name and a brief summary of the project,
d . Percentage of impact fee eligibility and type,
e. The project life expectancy,
f. Whether the project is located in an RDA project area,
g. Total project cost and an indication as to whether a project is one phase of a larger
project,
h. Subtotals where the project contains multiple scope elements that could be funded
separately,
1. Any savings derived from funding multiple projects together,
j. Timing for when a project will come on-line,
k. Whether the project implements a master plan,
1. Whether the project significantly advances the City's renewable energy or
sustainability goals,
m . Ongoing annual operating impact to the General Fund,
n. Any community support for the project -such as community councils or petitions,
o. Communities served,
p. Legal requirements/mandates,
q. Whether public health and safety is affected,
r. Whether the project is included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan,
s. Whether the project leverages external funding sources, and
t. Any partner organizations .
Debt Management Policies
1. Prioritize Debt Service for Projects in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan -The Council
intends to utilize long-term borrowing only for capital improvement projects that are
included in the City's 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan or in order to take advantage of
opportunities to restructure or refund current debt. Short-term borrowing might be utilized in
anticipation of future tax collections to finance working capital needs.
2. Evaluate Existing Debt before Issuing a New Debt-The Council requests that the
Administration provide an analysis of the City's debt capacity, and how each proposal meets
the Council's debt policies, prior to proposing any projects for debt financing. This analysis
should include the effect of the bond issue on the City's debt ratios , the City 's ability to
finance future projects of equal or higher priority , and the City's bond ratings.
3. Identify Repayment Source when Proposing New Debt-The Council requests that the
Administration identify the source of funds to cover the anticipated debt service requirement
whenever the Administration recommends borrowing additional funds.
4. Monitoring Debt Impact to the General Fund-The Council requests that the Administration
analyze the impact of debt-financed capital projects on the City's operating budget and
coordinate this analysis with the budget development process.
5. Disclosure of Bond Feasibility and Challenges -The Council requests that the
Administration provide a statement from the City's financial advisor that each proposed bond
issue appears feasible for bond financing as proposed. Such statement from the City's
financial advisor should also include an indication of requirements or circumstances that the
Council should be aware of when considering the proposed bond issue (such as any net
negative fiscal impacts on the City 's operating budget, debt capacity limits , or rating
implications).
6. A void Use of Financial Derivative Instruments -The Council intends to avoid using interest
rate derivatives or other financial derivatives when considering debt issuance.
7 . Maintain Reasonable Debt Ratios-The Council does not intend to issue debt that would
cause the City's debt ratio benchmarks to exceed moderate ranges as indicated by the
municipal bond rating industry .
8. Maintain High Level Bond Ratings-The Council intends to maintain the highest credit
rating feasible and to adhere to fiscally responsible practices when issuing debt.
9. Consistent Annual Debt Payments Preferred -The Council requests that the Administration
structure debt service payments in level amounts over the useful life of the financed
project(s) unless anticipated revenues dictate otherwise or the useful life of the financed
project(s) suggests a different maturity schedule.
10. Sustainable Debt Burden-The Council intends to combine pay-as-you-go strategy with
long-term financing to keep the debt burden sufficiently low to merit continued AAA general
obligation bond ratings and to provide sufficient available debt capacity in case of
emergency.
11. Lowest Cost Options-The City will seek the least costly financing available when evaluating
debt financing options .
12. Avoid Creating Structural Deficits-The City will minimize the use of one-time revenue to
fund programs/projects that require ongoing costs including debt repayments.
13. Aligning Debt and Project Timelines-Capital improvement projects financed through the
issuance of bonded debt will have a debt service that is not longer than the useful life of the
project.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this -~3L.Lr_...d ___ day of
October , 2017.
ATTEST :
HB _A TTY -#64309 -v3-CIP _a nd_ Debt_ Management_Pol icies
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By 4 = ASL
CHAIRPERSON -=-::::::::____
Salt Lake City
App ed As To Form
By : ~~~~~~~.P
aysen Oldroyd
Da e: lt:>/-:z.../ 17
10,413,236$ 1,100,000$ 8,800,000$ 880,000$ 900,000$ 1,000,000$ 10,500,000$ 10,600,000$
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
REQUEST -$
CDCIP -$ -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 2,300,000$
CDCIP 2,300,000$ 230,000$ 2,070,000$
MAYOR 2,300,000$ 230,000$ 2,070,000$
COUNCIL -$
Engineering Division
Application withdrawn; funding request was in Budget Amendment #5 of FY2025
2 Vision Zero Corridors & Safety Improvements Citywide 2026
Transportation Division
Traffic fatalities and serious injuries are preventable, not just an inevitable result of traveling in
a city. While all crashes cannot be avoided, proven safety measures can help turn fatal crashes
into bumps or fender benders.
This is the premise of an entire body of work at the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the
Safe Streets and Roads For All program (SS4A) that was formulated, after being funded by
Congress, under the leadership of former SLC Transportation Director Robin Hutcheson.
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures
The SS4A program funded a regional Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) through the
Wasatch Front Regional Council, with Salt Lake City as a partner.
https://wfrc.org/programs/csap/ The CSAP identifies key corridors in Salt Lake City where
safety improvements are likely to result in fewer and less severe crashes. Many of these are
state highways, but some are local streets. The three priority corridors identified in the plan are
Redwood Road, 900 West, and 800 South. There are many additional corridors around the
City that are in need of safety investments Some of those corridors will be addressed through
other projects in the pipeline (such as the 600 North reconstruction planned in 2025).
Since the pandemic, Salt Lake City has averaged 19 traffic fatalities a year on surface streets
(not including interstates). Since 2021 we have 66 recorded roadway fatalities in Salt Lake City
of which approximately 45% killed someone walking or riding their bike. This failing roadway
system needs to be fixed.
This program seeks targeted funds to focus on corridors with a significant crash history, and
with characteristics that can be made safer with infrastructure investments.
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
Street - Safety
Page 1
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 2,052,000$
CDCIP 1,368,000$ 912,000$ 456,000$
MAYOR 2,052,000$ 1,596,000$ 456,000$
COUNCIL -$
Public Lands Department
This project will fund the replacement of three failing restrooms of Salt Lake City's 47 park
restrooms. Detailed design will be based upon recommendations from the FY 24/25 CIP-
funded citywide restroom study, upon completion (anticipated completion by the end of 2025
or early 2026). Also, engagement conducted for the 2019 Needs Assessment showed that the
number one requested improvement for Public Lands, over all else, was safe, well-maintained
and open restrooms. This project was ranked by the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and
Trails Advisory Board (PNUT Board) as the highest priority for funding this year.
Currently, many restrooms in the Public Lands' inventory are unsafe, closed, or unusable year-
round, or for portions of the year, when they are intended to be open. New restrooms will be
safer, easier to maintain, less susceptible to vandalism, open more often and more predictably,
as well as be more welcoming for park users. The below locations are proposed for potential
new restrooms, based on asset condition, accessibility and ADA needs, investment equity, and
high levels of safety concerns based on Park's maintenance staff experience. Three restrooms
will be selected prior to design, and based on the above criteria, efficiencies with other projects
to enable cost savings, and highest safety concerns:
Fairmont Park, northeast restroom
Liberty Park, near the new Rotary Play Park
Riverside Park, near 600 North
Cottonwood Park
Jordan Park, near the skatepark
Herman Franks Park, both are in need of replacement
CW
Page 2
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 3,730,000$
CDCIP 2,314,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,314,000$
MAYOR 2,684,929$ 1,370,929$ 1,314,000$
COUNCIL -$
Public Lands Department
Funding will bring park infrastructure into legal compliance with the 1990 Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), which is federal civil rights law, and the 2010 ADA Standards for
Accessible Design.
In this first round of what Public Lands and the Mayor's Office ADA Coordinator anticipate will
(1) site arrival points, (2) pedestrian access routes, and (3) playgrounds and accessible ground
surfacing under play areas.
Prioritization and selection of the 10 parks included in this first round's application were based
on project readiness, public usage and engagement (see Appendix F, p. 28 of the SETP),
severity of the issue, safety, and/or the 2024 Salt Lake City ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition
Plan (SETP):
- Riverside Park (Council District 1)
- Sorensen Multi-Cultural Center's fields and playground (CD2)
- Jordan Park (CD2)
- 11th Avenue Park (CD3)
- Lindsey Gardens Park (CD3)
- Victory Park (CD4)
- Ballpark Playground (formerly People's Freeway Park on West Temple St, CD5)
- Wasatch Hollow Park (CD6)
- Parley's Way Park (CD7)
- Parley's Historic Nature Park.
Additionally, failure to remove barriers excludes children and adults with disabilities from fully
participating in park activities, further limiting their access to health and social benefits.
If funding is left over, additional replacement or repair of asphalt, concrete, wood, pavers,
within parks would ensure smooth, ADA-compliant surfaces for all.
CW
Page 3
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 4,750,000$
CDCIP 3,790,676$ 1,000,000$ 2,790,676$
MAYOR 4,390,676$ 1,000,000$ 2,790,676$ 600,000$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 680,600$
CDCIP 1,680,600$ 1,680,600$
MAYOR 1,680,600$ 1,680,600$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 750,000$
CDCIP 750,000$ 750,000$
MAYOR 750,000$ 750,000$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 1,000,000$
CDCIP 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
MAYOR 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
COUNCIL -$
Engineering Division
700 North is a vital transportation west side connection; from housing developments on
Redwood to I-215 to industrial and airport general aviation. This project will not only repave
the deteriorated street surface, but add pedestrian and transit enhancements and safety
features, transforming the corridor for all users.
The 700 North Corridor Transformation project was selected by the Wasatch Front Regional
Council for construction funding in 2027. This CIP request will provide part of the local match
($1,680,600 required) in order to obtain $3,000,000 Federal funding programmed for this
project.
7 Public Way Concrete
Engineering Division
This annual program addresses deteriorated or defective concrete sidewalks, accessibility
or removal and replacement. Funding for this vital program in the last 5 years has averaged
63%. Providing a fully accessible public right-of-way is an unfunded federal mandate through
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
5 Street Reconstruction 2026
Engineering Division
This annual program funds the vital reconstruction of deteriorated City streets, including street
pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage improvements as necessary, and appropriate
complete streets bicycle, pedestrian and transit access improvements. The program meets all
federal Americans With Disability Act (ADA) requirements, which are always triggered with a
complete reconstruction.
Maintenance
CW
Maintenance
1
Maintenance
CW
8 Liberty Lake Dredging and Aeration System Replacement
Public Lands Department
The aeration system at Liberty Lake in Liberty Park is in disrepair and is nonfunctional. As a
result, the water quality is generally poor, and the lake is intermittently closed for safety and
well-being of all park visitors. The stagnant water and shallow depth also increases water
temperature, and increases algal blooms which are harmful to park users, dogs and wildlife
within the area.
of the lake, water quality of Red Butte Creek downstream of Liberty Park (and in turn the
Jordan River), and improve user experience and the health of flora, fauna, and park visitors. It
will also significantly reduce maintenance costs and obligations, and will reinvigorate
recreational uses of the Lake, also contributing to economic success of the Liberty Park
concessionaire and improving visitor experience.
5
Page 4
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 5,000,000$
CDCIP 1,017,515$ 1,007,515$ 10,000$
MAYOR 1,017,515$ 1,007,515$ 10,000$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 1,000,000$
CDCIP 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
MAYOR 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
COUNCIL -$
Landscaping
Public Lands Department
This climate-forward project to replace up to 20 acres of aged irrigation systems will help shape
a water and resource-conscious future for many of our parks and public lands. It has two
essential parts: improve irrigation efficiency, and replace some turf areas with low-water,
regionally-appropriate plantings. The environmental, infrastructure, and public lands benefits
of these changes are far-reaching.
years old. They use more water and cost more to maintain than newer systems. Improved or
completely new irrigation systems can help Salt Lake City build more resilient, shady, and
enjoyable spaces in preparation for a hotter, drier future. Even if the plant selection remains
the same, new irrigation systems will use less water, require less maintenance, break less often,
keep existing and future trees healthier, and last another 30+ years. During installation,
projects may add trees and convert some turf landscaping to more waterwise options. These
two strategies can significantly reduce water use and increase resiliency.
The Department has identified priority sites to initiate changes and develop new standards for
waterwise, tree-friendly irrigation improvements within two different types of public lands. It
should be noted that this part of the funding request will not cover all of the public lands
system's needs.
Where practicable, replace turf with low-water, regionally-appropriate plantings: Updating
irrigation systems is also an opportunity to identify and make changes to the different kinds of
areas and plant cover in our parks and public lands. Low use and passive areas should be
converted into regionally appropriate, waterwise plants requiring less maintenance. There is
still a need for conventional turf that can withstand heavy use, such as playfields. These areas
should be irrigated separately for efficient use of water.
10 Bridge Preservation Program
Engineering Division
Salt Lake City is responsible for 55 bridges. Twenty-three of those are vehicle bridges, most
crossing either the Jordan River or the Surplus Canal. UDOT inspects these vehicle bridges
every two years and provides the city with a basic condition report. The city is responsible for
performing appropriate maintenance activities based on statements in the UDOT report. City
Engineering has prepared an ongoing bridge maintenance strategy with the objective of
extending the functional life of these structures, and extending the time between major repairs.
The requested funds will be used to address needed repairs and routine maintenance.
CW
Bridge -
Maintenance
CW
Page 5
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 1,107,117$
CDCIP 1,107,117$ 1,005,117$ 102,000$
MAYOR 1,107,117$ 1,005,117$ 102,000$
COUNCIL -$
Infrastructure Upgrades
Public Lands Department
A 50/50 match with Salt Lake County, per our 1957 contractual agreement, for the following
improvements, in order of priority, to Sugar House Park:
1. Replacement of the Sugar Beet Pavilion (#4 of 7) ($528,000) and the remainder of Salt Lake
City's portion of the total required SLC Dept of Public Utilities' stormwater impact fee
($37,500)
2. Hidden Grove Ped Bridge Railing Replacement and Sidewalk Upgrades ($33,890)
3. Culinary Waterline Study and Replacement ($82,000) - replaces dangerous waterline
4. WeatherTRAK Irrigation System Upgrade ($51,867) - smarter water, reduced water usage
5. Parking Lot Resurfacing ($207,000) - Improves vehicle access to 6/7 pavilions
6. Playground Shade Structures ($102,000; Parks Impact Fees) - near Parley's Creek Pavilion
playground
7. Spoke Road Resurfacing ($64,860) - resurface and improve safety and predictability of the
road and intersection just north of the pond.
a contractual agreement to jointly own the park property and appropriate funds for facilities.
The Sugar House Park Authority depends on these appropriations from SLC and SLCo to carry
out the park's purpose as an equitable Regional Park. Salt Lake City's 50% investment in these
capital project requests and deliver 100% of the reward to Salt Lake City residents.
Priorities of the park are to continue with the Pavilion Replacement Program with pavilion #4
of 7, pay fees, meet codes, provide safe drinking water, pay stormwater impact fees, improve
safety and accessibility, reduce water use and maintenance costs, and protect kids and prolong
the useful life of existing equipment. These projects are critical for the access, safety, inclusion,
and enjoyment of Sugar House Park patrons and will deliver community benefits, support
sustainability efforts, and continue Salt Lake City's and Salt Lake County's decades-long
collaborative funding and management agreement.
7
Page 6
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 1,980,868$
CDCIP 1,980,868$ 1,980,868$
MAYOR 1,980,868$ 1,980,868$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 4,000,000$
CDCIP 4,000,000$ 400,000$ 3,600,000$
MAYOR 4,000,000$ 400,000$ 3,600,000$
COUNCIL -$
Facilities Division
The Facility Renewal and Deferred Asset Management Initiative for Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) is
a targeted effort aligned with the 10-year plan. Our goal is to strategically manage the existing
backlog of deferred assets by categorizing and prioritizing them based on building and
component criticality. This involves dividing the current backlog into three equal parts,
enabling us to address an approximately consistent number of assets per year. Additionally, we
aim to proactively tackle 50% of incoming deferred assets to prevent further accumulation.
This focused approach ensures efficient resource allocation and sets the foundation for
sustained facility enhancement over the coming years.
13 Traffic Signal Replacements & Upgrades 2026
Transportation Division
Salt Lake City's Traffic Signal Replacement and Upgrade Program has not been adequately
funded for years. As a result, traffic signals throughout the city are falling into failing condition,
requiring many patchwork repairs to their electronics and wiring each year. When a traffic
falls over, which can happen. More frequently when a traffic signal fails, it no longer accurately
detects motor vehicle and bicycle traffic. This means that the signal then has to be set on a
simple timer without being able to sense whether traffic is waiting to cross. This results in
additional traffic delays, congestion, and may contribute to road rage, red-light running, and
crashes. Signals can also fail in that they require frequent staff attention to physical repairs
and/or resetting the signal's computers.
For the past several years, the traffic signal program has sought to fund 6 signal replacements
per year and 5 upgrades. This level of funding has been needed each year for 10 years.
However, since only zero, one or two signals have been funded each year, this program
continues to fall further behind.
This financially constrained request of $4 million seeks to fund full replacement of 6 ranked
signals in failing condition with structural and/or equipment deficiencies, plus upgrades to
detection and/or communications equipment. Based on the current costs of signals, this
request should be $5 million.
Maintenance
CW
CW
Page 7
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 1,000,000$
CDCIP 1,000,000$ 100,000$ 900,000$
MAYOR 1,000,000$ 100,000$ 900,000$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 1,500,000$
CDCIP 1,500,000$ 150,000$ 1,350,000$
MAYOR 1,500,000$ 150,000$ 1,350,000$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 3,500,000$
CDCIP 3,500,000$ 3,500,000$
MAYOR 3,500,000$ 3,500,000$
14 Transit Capital Program 2026 / Funding Our Future Transit
Transportation Division
The Funding our Future Transit Capital Program leverages outside funds from UTA to install
bus shelters, benches, trash cans, and partner on the development of mobility hubs and
accessible first/last mile connections to transit. This program implements two of the key
recommendations of the Transit Master Plan, seeking to make all transit stops accessible, safe,
and comfortable for people of all ages and abilities. This is also required by federal law,
particularly when streets are repaved or reconstructed.
After Salt Lake City constructs a concrete bus stop pad, UTA pays for and installs the stop
amenities and maintains them for the life of the assets.
Also as outlined in the Transit Master Plan, a highly visible "frequent service" brand and
enhanced amenities has been developed and is ready for deployment at Frequent Transit Route
bus stops throughout the city. These investments in branding and enhanced stations can help
achieve the Transit Master Plan goal of providing a safe and comfortable transit access and
waiting experience.
Some of the new shelters are now equipped with lighting, which will make passengers who are
waiting more visible to operators, as well as to increase safety and security while they are
waiting.
15 Missing Sidewalks & Bikeway Network Gaps 2026
Transportation Division
This program will implement one of five key moves identified in Connect SLC, the Citywide
Transportation Plan (adopted by the City Council in 2024) -- to retrofit existing streets with
walking and bicycling facilities as well as adding strategically selected segments of trails, to
create a complete network. Recent opportunistic projects, including those in the 2018 streets
bond, have made great progress. From the perspective of someone walking or bicycling,
however, these new projects are not connected seamlessly to other facilities or each other. This
annual program will connect these gaps.
Gaps are of particular safety concern because someone walking or bicycling may need to
"brave" a section of street without a sidewalk or bikeway to get to their destination.
Short segments of sidewalks are missing all over the city -- the equivalent of sidewalk OCI 0.
This year's program is likely, for example, to address a missing sidewalk near a school on L
Street in the Avenues and one or more missing sidewalks in the Glendale Neighborhood
identified in a community-council created active transportation plan.
Existing roadways without bike infrastructure, despite having had a Complete Street policy for
over 17 years, will be selected based on gaps in the network. Gaps will be addressed using
inexpensive materials like paint, bollards, and/or separation provided by parked vehicles,
similar to projects implemented in the last couple years on 200 East and 300 East. An
emphasis will be placed on bike lanes with physical separation, where possible.
Addressing these gaps may seem like "new" infrastructure. In most cases, however, people
bicycling and walking are already using these roadways without the benefit of complete
infrastructure. If the overall condition of a roadway were graded for "completeness" instead of
potholes, such locations would be "poor" to "failing."
16 Street Overlays 2026
Engineering Division
This annual program funds the overlay of City streets that have not yet fallen to the level of
CW
CW
Maintenance
CW
Page 8
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
deterioration where full reconstruction is required. Overlays include mill and overlay of street
pavement, spot curb and gutter and sidewalk replacement, drainage improvements as
necessary, and appropriate complete streets bicycle and pedestrian access improvements.
Overlays are of particular interest from a cost savings perspective, because streets of this
condition are in their last possible years before a considerably more expensive, full
reconstruction will become inevitable. This is analogous to an old house that needs its wooden
siding replaced. A few more years of rot, and you will need to replace all the framing too. A lot
more expensive.
The program incorporates federal Americans With Disability Act (ADA) requirements, such as
sidewalk curb ramps and bus stop access, which are triggered with an overlay project.
Page 9
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 90,000$
CDCIP 90,000$ 90,000$
MAYOR 90,000$ 90,000$
COUNCIL -$
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
This application seeks funding to complete a study and detailed design to expand the Jordan
Park Skatepark.
Nestled within the Glendale neighborhood of Salt Lake City lies a cultural cornerstone beloved
by locals and renowned among skateboarders nationwide - Jordan Skatepark, affectionately
known as "9th and 9th". For over 20 years, this iconic space has been a sanctuary for skaters, a
hub for community building, and a vital thread in the fabric of Glendale.
As Jordan Skatepark approaches its third decade of existence, the realities of time and use have
begun to reveal cracks in its foundation. With a surge in popularity over the years, the park
finds itself bursting at the seams, struggling to accommodate the ever-growing groups of
skaters who flock to it.
2
Page 10
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 100,000$
CDCIP 100,000$ 100,000$
MAYOR 100,000$ 100,000$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 2,000,000$
CDCIP 2,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
MAYOR 2,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 303,000$
CDCIP 303,000$ 303,000$
MAYOR 303,000$ 303,000$
COUNCIL -$
Transportation Division
Salt Lake City's bike share system, GREENbike, has received nearly $860,000 in federal funds
that require a $60,000 city match. This funding will be used to replace old, rusting, falling-
apart stations and bikes. GREENbike's oldest equipment is over 12 years old and has been
exposed to weather and the public 24/7/365. Of the 50 stations in Salt Lake system, 23 are at
the end of their lifespan; parts are no longer available for repairs. Over 130,000 individuals
have taken hundreds of thousands of rides, mashing buttons on stations, yanking or slamming
bikes into docks, or dropping bikes. Deteriorated bikes can create unsafe conditions for riders,
and stations may unexpectedly fail which can lead to personal safety concerns for people
walking from a further station than anticipated. While GREENbike is rebuilding bikes as much
as possible and cobbling together stations out of old parts, ultimately both bikes and stations
need to be replaced. CIP is not for equipment. Bikes are equipment. Bike Stations are eligible.
This funding request also includes $20,000 to replace 20+ year old bike racks owned by the
City on the public way. Racks have been hit by cars, mangled, or simply rusted out, with little
to no attention to maintenance. While this may seem minor, in at least one instance a rusted
bike rack fell over, injuring a child and leading to a payout by the city. Racks that have been
damaged beyond use have simply been removed, rather than replaced. The priority of this
request is maintenance and replacement If funds allow, some new bike racks may be installed
at business or customer request. This is maintenance and not Capital Maintenance and should
be part of the Operational Budget.
In addition to permanent bike racks, the City has a program for 15 years to seasonally replace
one car parking space with a bike rack for 10 bicycles. This is called a "bike corral." Most of the
city's racks are damaged, may be unsafe to use, and do not make a good impression. This
request will also allocate $20,000 to bike corral replacements. If funds allow, business requests
for new corrals will be considered.
Maintenance
CW
19 Livable Streets Program 2026
Transportation Division
This citywide program aims to address the most common resident complaint to Transportation
staff - speeding vehicles. It uses a data-driven & equitable prioritization process for the
implementation of traffic calming improvements in the areas most in need. This year's funding
request is for three zones. This program is scalable; additional funding would allow
Transportation to move through the 113 total zones more quickly. At the current rate of 3-4
zones per year, the program will take around 25-30 years to address all of the areas of the city.
20 1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk and Repave Street
Constituent Application; Engineering Division
Install curb and gutter on east side of road, and curb, gutter, and sidewalk on west side of road
on 1200 East between Zenith Ave. and Crandall Ave and repave 1200 E between Crandall Ave
and Zenith Ave.
CW
&
Streets -
Maintenance
7
Page 11
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 500,000$
CDCIP 500,000$ 500,000$
MAYOR 500,000$ 500,000$
COUNCIL -$
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
I've lived on the corner of Richmond and Zenith with my family since 2021. My family walks
across Richmond daily to get to the daycare on another corner. Many people, including kids,
families, and elderly, walk across Richmond to get to daycare, parks, bus stops, the grocery
store, and school - Richmond runs through the Nibley Park School District and the 213 bus,
which services Highland High School, Westminster University, and The U, has north- and
south-bound stops at Richmond and Zenith. Pedestrian traffic is only likely to increase as more
apartment buildings and businesses are opened in the growing Brickyard area.
Despite all the pedestrian traffic, Richmond remains a 5-lane street - a road design the city and
Sugarhouse are working to replace to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety. There is only a set
of flashing pedestrian yield signs at Richmond and Zenith, which drivers either don't notice or
choose to disregard. My family and I often stand at the Zenith corner so long, waiting for all 5
lanes to stop, that we have to hit the pedestrian crosswalk button multiple times.
In 3 years, I've witnessed at least 5 car accidents, including a car rear-ending a stopped bus and
a car rear-ending another car that stopped for a pedestrian using the crosswalk. Our backyard
fence along Richmond is destroyed because a car went through it. Countless drivers have
almost hit other cars or pedestrians, including parents with strollers and kids. Neighbors who
signed my CIP petition used the words "scary", "nightmare", and "dangerous" to describe
crossing Richmond.
My CIP application aims to make the Richmond/Zenith intersection safe for pedestrians with
the installation of a HAWK signal. The Transportation Division confirmed a HAWK signal is
the next tier of pedestrian safety for the intersection. Adding a HAWK signal on Richmond will
walk, and use transit.
7
Page 12
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 1,900,000$
CDCIP 630,000$ 630,000$
MAYOR 630,000$ 630,000$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 1,540,000$
CDCIP 385,000$ 385,000$
MAYOR 385,000$ 385,000$
COUNCIL -$
Park - Maintenance
Park - Maintenance
Public Lands Department
This project proposes, but is not limited to, replacing two to three of Salt Lake City's
approximately 110 concrete or asphalt sport courts used for tennis, pickleball, basketball, and
other activities. The targeted locations and courts include:
Westpointe Park Basketball Court: The current basketball court is undersized for the
aging and in need of replacement. Expanding and updating the court will better meet
community needs by providing modern, high-quality amenities to an underserved population.
Adding an artistic element to the court design could further enhance the sense of community
and support local identity.
Riverside Park Tennis Courts: These asphalt courts are showing significant wear, including
cracks and peeling surfacing, which hinder playability. Replacing these courts and/or
converting some to pickleball courts would improve accessibility, ensure safety, and offer a
more enjoyable recreational environment for the community.
Liberty Park Volleyball Court: The volleyball court surfacing at Liberty Park is also
deteriorating. As part of a potential public/private partnership, this court may be converted
into a street soccer court. To support this transition, resurfacing the court is recommended to
ensure a durable and safe play area.
aging facilities to create safe and engaging spaces for residents. Other court
replacement/renovation projects should also be considered, especially if higher priority
projects are identified after the initial application and funding process is complete. Alternate
locations to consider include Sunnyside Park basketball court, Warm Springs Park tennis
courts, Madsen Park basketball court, and Victory Park/10th East Senior Center tennis courts.
23 Playground Replacements
Public Lands Department
Replace and upgrade playground equipment and surfacing that are beyond their safe and
serviceable life at up to four parks.
Playgrounds typically last 20-25 years. Salt Lake City has 79 playgrounds. Replacing four per
year will ensure that children are safer, more engaged, and more consistently able to access
play features near their homes and schools. This programmatic, annual funding request
includes playground, surfacing, minor design, permitting, and community engagement costs.
Four of the following playgrounds (in alphabetical order) will be selected based on asset
condition, accessibility/ADA needs, and investment equity: 6th East Mini Park, 11th Avenue
Park, Davis Park, Lindsey Gardens Park, Parley's Way Park, Pugsley Ouray Park, Riverside
Park, Victory Park.
Page 13
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 855,724$
CDCIP 855,724$ 678,724$ 177,000$
MAYOR 855,724$ 678,724$ 177,000$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 954,720$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
The 600 East Byway Safety Improvements CIP aims to make safety improvements to 600 East
between 900 South at Liberty Park to the connection to N Street at South Temple. 600 East is
one of Salt Lake City's first neighborhood byways; however, this section has seen few safety
upgrades apart from improved crossings at 800 South and 900 South. In some parts of the
route, there are shared bike lane markings with no traffic calming to force slow speeds (South
Temple to 200 South and 600 South to 900 South). Between 200 South and 600 South, there
are standard painted bike lanes with no traffic calming. This area has higher traffic volumes
that make it more stressful to ride a bike or walk across the street, and is the area with the most
destinations. This project would install traffic calming throughout the route, improve walking
and biking crossings, and improve the bike lanes at key locations. 600 East is a very important
active transportation connection for the Central City community. It provides direct access to 5
grocery stores, a school, multiple retail and dining clusters, Liberty Park, lots of housing, and
completes a connection from the Lower Avenues through Central City to Liberty Wells. This
project is supported by the Salt Lake City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, would contribute
to SLC's goal of zero deaths and severe injuries by 2035, and reduce emissions for SLC's
sustainability goals.
4
25 East Central Community Council 1200 East Median Restoration Proposal (300-
400 South and 400- 500 South)
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
The curbing & irrigation systems for these medians has fallen into serious disrepair, causing a
cascading series of issues affecting the space. During major events at the U, & day to day due to
the # of rental housing in the area, a low / no curbing along the medians allows vehicles to park
& drive over the medians, often breaking sprinkler heads & causing irrigation failures. This
failure in irrigation has caused the die off of many large, mature trees, as well as the failed
establishment of newly planted trees. Since these large medians represent a large portion of the
limited usable open space for East Central residents, this simple fix would provide a major
immediate and long-term improvement to the quality of life, longevity, and beauty of the
usage/water loss.
This project seeks to install new curbing around each island to prevent cars from driving across
the turf & will allow the soil to be raised to match the grade of the top of the root ball of the
existing trees. Replacing the irrigation systems & planting a significant number of new trees
supplementing the urban forest that remains will provide a major impact on urban heat
reduction, as well as reducing long term irrigation & water use as more turf areas are shaded,
experiencing less soil moisture loss. (See attached "1200 E. Island Rehabilitation -Overall
Plan")
The tree planting portion of the project is in support of the "Trillion Tree Campaign" in an
effort to aid in enhancing SLC's air quality. This project seeks to establish a healthy succession
tree plan replacing the dying or lost trees, as well as drastically increasing the species diversity
of what is currently planted. This phase seeks to quadruple the tree count over these spaces,
planting species recommended by SLC Urban Forestry to reduce water needs, promote
longevity, increase species diversity, & emphasize resilience to a changing climate.
Maintenance
4
Page 14
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 475,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 932,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
Traffic calming measures between 900 West and the Jordan River Trail on 500 South.
* Reduce the speed of vehicles using a system of speed humps (6).
* Make pedestrian crossings shorter and make pedestrians more visible
* Marked/raised cross walks leading to the Post Street Tot Lot, The Neighborhood House, and
at the intersection of the Jordan River Parkway
27 Nevada Street Reconstruction
Constituent Application; Engineering Division
We are looking to rebuild Nevada St running from Redondo Ave north to Garfield. Then west
on Garfield for about 90ft.
Nevada St starting at Redondo Ave and running north about 900 FEET then west 90 FEET
(.17mi)
5K each ADA ramp.
3 with north end option 1 rebuild.
NW corner of Redondo Ave and Nevada St
NE corner of Redondo Ave and Nevada St
North end of Nevada, west side of street at the dogleg with Garfield
15 driveways north of Redondo on the east side with a Pipe-drive (Darin) or Overhead (Lynn)
7 driveways north of Redondo on the west side that do not have a drainpipe under the foot
Speedbumps or humps
2
Street -
Maintenance
6
Page 15
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 530,000$
CDCIP 530,000$ 79,500$ 450,500$
MAYOR 530,000$ 79,500$ 450,500$
COUNCIL -$
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
The Riverside Basketball Court is a community hub that promotes physical activity and social
interaction. However, the current condition of the court is deteriorated, and outdated, affecting
its usability and safety. This proposal outlines the need for renovation and the benefits of this
project.
Objectives-
Enhance facility to a full court NBA regulation size. Updating the aesthetics of the basketball
court and adding amenities to make it user friendly.
This would improve the overall playing experience for community members as well as foster
community engagement through recreational activities.
Scope of Work-
*Court Construction: Install durable, full court with a weather resistant surface. Mark lines for
both full and half court play. Customize with an original art mural.
*Hoop Replacement: Install new, adjustable basketball hoops to accommodate players of all
ages and skill levels.
*Additional Amenities: Install fencing, benches, trash cans to enhance the user experience
We've met and gathered input and suggestions from local residents, city council member Dan
Dugan and Arts Council staff member Renato Olmedo-Gonzales regarding the renovations.
This will ensure that the project meets the needs and preferences of those who use the court.
Renovating the Riverside Basketball Court will significantly enhance our community's
recreational facilities, promote healthy lifestyles, and foster social connections. We respectfully
request approval for this Capital Improvement Project to ensure a safe and enjoyable
environment for our Rose Park Community.
1
Page 16
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 350,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 240,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
This application is submitted for, and on behalf of, the Liberty Wells Community Council.
There has been active discussion at council meetings with area residents, working to formulate
this application, with the ultimate goal of finding solutions to slow traffic traveling through the
council boundaries. The proposed project is for the addition of traffic calming measures within
the Liberty Wells community - specifically on 300 E, 400 E, and 600 E between 1700 S and
2100 S. The community has suffered under the onslaught of vehicles traveling north and south
on these streets ignoring the posted speed limit through the residential area. There are
residents in the area that have been asking Salt Lake City to explore, and provide, remedy for
the vehicles speeding through the neighborhood for over 18 years. The electronic driver
feedback boards on 400 E regularly display vehicle MPH speeds in the 30s to upper 40s, even
E, but the expected budget amount provided by the Transportation department was so high
that we knew our application would most likely be rejected. In discussion with residents, the
project area was scaled back with the rationale that 200 E has multiple curves that naturally
was reconstructed, along with it being a feeder route with a higher speed limit. Included are
photos of vehicles that were traveling through the area at high/unsafe speeds and ended up
flipping over onto the vehicle roof.
30 Downtown Farmers Market - Upgraded Electrical Service
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
Our proposed project would fund new electrical service to meet needs of the Downtown
Farmers Market (DTFM) other community organizers planning events in the Pioneer Park
neighborhood and add capacity for continued growth of the market. To maintain the size and
scope of the current market during park renovations, and retain our loyal customer base the
market will be moving to the streets surrounding Pioneer Park. One of the biggest hurdles we
are facing as the market moves to the streets is a solution to power access for our 20+ prepared
food vendors. For the past 33 years we have been able to operate without the need for
individual gas powered generators, which has reduced noise and air pollution/exhaust, helping
us further our Waste Wise mission and create a better atmosphere at the market.
We have collaborated closely with Public Lands on our move to the streets during construction,
and to come up with permanent power solutions for our market vendors in the street. We have
considered adding electrical service to the park strips around Pioneer Park on 400 West and
300 South, but both of those locations come with a variety of hurdles including damaging the
root zones of historic trees. Considering these issues the best solution is to add new electrical
service to the median on 300 South. This power would help facilitate a successful move of the
market to city streets while the park is under construction, as well as provide additional power
electrical service for only 8 vendors). We foresee closures of 300 South and 400 West and use
of the new electrical service being part of market operations and park activations into the
future. We also believe that new electrical service in the 300 South median opening
opportunities for additional holiday and event lighting, and additional street activation.
4
5
Page 17
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 812,500$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 693,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
Constituent Application; Engineering Division
Replacement of Texas Street asphalt (OCI 18) from terminus south of Hillside Middle School
one block to Redondo Avenue. Most of the "Overhead approach" driveways on the east side of
the street are in equally poor condition and need to be replaced.
32 Sweet Streets Bike Network Gap Filling
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
The bike network safety CIP aims to revisit existing bike routes and make improvements at key
areas, such as busy intersections, high stress bike lanes, and filling gaps in the network. While
newly completed projects include safety elements like traffic calming, buffered lanes, protected
lanes, and intersection improvements, older projects are lacking these elements, leading to
high stress, unsafe routes. In other areas, the lack of a safe crossing could hinder the bike route
utility, leading to its disuse by people biking. This project intends to focus on the bigger picture
and isolated improvements. The project will also consider markings, signage,
beautification/art, and wayfinding to aid in navigation and encourage bicycling. The CIP
supports several City initiatives, such as Vision Zero - zero serious injuries or deaths by 2035,
the Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan, the Complete Streets Ordinance, and a recent technical
assistant grant (Accelerated Mobility Playbook) which will help accelerate this project. Overall,
health, and well being, and reduce congestion on our streets.
Maintenance
6
CW
Page 18
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 104,177$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
Powered Pedestrian Activated Flashers
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
Pedestrian Safety requirements within the East Central Community Council Area.
East Central has been identified as one the most walkable neighborhoods within Salt Lake City
(University of Utah/9th & 9th/Trolley Square/Downtown), it includes the highest transit
ridership routes (2/1300/Trax), the high percentage of traffic between the U/Downtown & the
highest rental rate within the city (73%). In addition, given our location next to the U/stadium,
anticipated growth of the U seeking to increase student population by 10,000, the number of
visitors housed within our area annually & during the 2002 Olympics, the ECC has established
this plan to ready our neighborhood to be not only inviting but safe. We appreciate SLC's
treatment of the ECC hot spots to date. Two new locations have been identified as extremely
dangerous to our community requiring pedestrian safety treatment. We are seeking pedestrian-
activated flashers at these locations. As a community, we are prioritizing pedestrian safety to
ensure that our neighborhood is not only visually appealing but also accessible & safe.
As the world prepares for the 2034 Olympics in Salt Lake City, the East Central Community
Council is embarked on an ambitious ten-year plan that will enhance our neighborhood's
aesthetic appeal and foster a stronger sense of community as we prepare to greet the world.
Given its location central in the heart of the City, imagine East Central as an inviting and safe
neighborhood complete with tree-lined streets, lush green spaces, community gathering places
that caters to residents and visitors alike and a sense of pride that radiates from every property.
This effort will not only enhance the neighborhood's aesthetic appeal but also foster a stronger
sense of community that leaves a lasting legacy for generations to come.
This is the vision we are bringing to life in East Central.
4
Page 19
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 500,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 324,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
This proposal will (1) help to secure the 1893 Fisher Mansion, a city-owned and currently
vacant property, and (2) move this resource closer to serving as a catalyst for economic
development, community engagement, and pride on Salt Lake City's West Side.
The Fisher Mansion and surrounding property were purchased in 2006 by Salt Lake City to
complete the Jordan River Trail. In 2023, the city completed the restoration of the Fisher
Mansion Carriage House (located on the mansion's grounds), which now houses Public Lands
Department staff. In 2022, the Salt Lake City Council budgeted $3 million to structurally and
seismically stabilize the mansion.
This stabilization, currently scheduled to begin in spring 2025, will repair and strengthen the
Fisher Mansion's foundations, walls, and roof. There is not enough funding in this $3 million
budget, however, to secure the building via new soffits and facia, repair broken windows, or to
bring the stone porch balustrade up to public safety code.
New soffits, facia, and stone balustrades are necessary to weatherproof the Fisher Mansion and
and are considered by Salt Lake City architects to be essential repairs, regardless of the
mansion's future occupancy. This application requests funding to pay for these repairs.
Additional site improvements will allow for continued and expanded use of the grounds, and
improve functionality and safety of the Jordan River boat access and the Jordan River Parkway
and Trail, and compliments the Emerald Ribbon Action Plan.
As funds are available, limited restoration of some doors and windows will improve safety,
security and access to the building, and further the ongoing full restoration for eventual
culture and history.
35 Neighborhood Alley Way Repavement (#4195) / Repave Alley #4195
Constituent Application; Engineering Division
This project aims to repave the local alleyway, creating a safe and accessible alternative parking
solution for homeowners and improving the overall aesthetics and functionality of the
neighborhood. The repaving will address the current state of disrepair, ensuring a smoother
surface, proper drainage, and increased safety for pedestrians and vehicles alike.
By investing in the repaving of the local alleyway, the community will experience a range of
benefits that not only address immediate concerns but also contribute to the long-term health,
safety, and prosperity of the neighborhood. The collaboration of the community in this project
demonstrates a collective commitment to enhancing the quality of life for all residents and
ensuring the neighborhood remains a desirable place to live for years to come.
Maintenance
2
Maintenance
5
Page 20
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 403,010$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 429,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 1,002,689$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR 1,078,807$ 1,078,807$
COUNCIL -$
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
This project would aim to increase safety at intersections around the city while also making it
easier to use modes of transportation outside of cars. The basic idea is to daylight intersections
to increase visibility that may otherwise be blocked by parked cars (sometimes illegally so)
using bike racks or scooter parking zones with physical infrastructure to prevent car parking in
these places. Physical infrastructure would also provide potential space for artists to create art.
38 PSB EV Charging Expansion
Facilities Division
We are seeking funding for the initial two phases of a vital project aimed at upgrading the
charging infrastructure at the Salt Lake City Public Safety Building, a central facility for the
city's police and fire departments, emergency operations center, and combined dispatch unit.
The project involves the installation of (20) new Level 2 charger ports, along with back feeding
(10) pre-existing ports within the existing two-floor garage, catering to a fleet of (50) public
services, police, and fire vehicles. Following the recommendations from Kimley-Horn &
Sawatch, the proposed funding will support the first two phases, which include the installation
of a new utility transformer on the east end of the property to facilitate the required electrical
service for efficient EV charging. This investment aligns with our commitment to sustainable
transportation as outlined in the City's 2020 Electrified Transportation Joint Resolution and
positions our city at the forefront of accommodating the evolving needs of our expanding EV
fleet.
36 Safe Routes to Beacon Heights, Hillside, and Cosgriff
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
This project aims to repave the local alleyway, creating a safe and accessible alternative parking
solution for homeowners and improving the overall aesthetics and functionality of the
neighborhood. The repaving will address the current state of disrepair, ensuring a smoother
surface, proper drainage, and increased safety for pedestrians and vehicles alike.
By investing in the repaving of the local alleyway, the community will experience a range of
benefits that not only address immediate concerns but also contribute to the long-term health,
safety, and prosperity of the neighborhood. The collaboration of the community in this project
demonstrates a collective commitment to enhancing the quality of life for all residents and
ensuring the neighborhood remains a desirable place to live for years to come.
Maintenance
6
Multi-Modal - New CW
4
Page 21
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 176,635$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 611,879$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
The First Encampment Park is in its 28th year and is a treasure in the Liberty Wells
Community but needs some capital improvements. Through funding provided by the Parks
Department, a novel path forward is being developed to present the historical information
etched on the boulders about the first pioneer settlers in the valley, and the damaged plaques
and has enabled us to move forward in our CIP requests for security and safety enhancements
to preserve the park's infrastructure which has deteriorated over the years. Since 1997, new
technology has improved providing possible upgrades for a more secure environment.
Therefore, our CIP goals are:
- Overhaul the irrigation system to better support turf, trees and new native plantings
- Replace non-native and non-historic plantings with water-wise legacy plants; replant the
Southwest corner of the park with native plants
prevent standing water and improve drainage
- Replace pavers for 300 sq feet of park pathways
- Update light poles and electrical capability with LED lighting for visitor security
- Replace in-ground ornamental lighting needed for three plaques
- Provide motion-censored pedestrian lighting
- Improve upheaval of the sidewalk on 1700 South and park strip to improve accessibility and
legal compliance with ADA
40 Plaza 349 EV Charging Expansion
Facilities Division
We are seeking funding for the initial two phases of a crucial project dedicated to upgrading the
charging infrastructure at Plaza 349. Situated off 200 E and University Boulevard, the Plaza
349 complex comprises an office building and a six-level parking garage, both served by a
single existing electrical service. The proposed project involves installing (20) new Level 2
charger ports and back feeding (4) pre-existing charging ports within the Plaza 349 parking
garage, which currently accommodates (38) fleet vehicles according to telematics data.
Following the recommendations from Kimley-Horn & Sawatch, the initial funding will support
the first two phases, including the installation of a new utility switching cabinet and
transformer strategically placed between the main building and parking garage to facilitate the
required electrical service for efficient EV charging. This investment aligns with our
commitment to sustainable transportation as outlined in the City's 2020 Electrified
Transportation Joint Resolution and positions our city at the forefront of accommodating the
evolving needs of our expanding EV fleet.
5
Facilities - New 4
Page 22
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 485,837$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 93,500$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
This project implements traffic calming measures on 800 W and improvements on Navajo and
in the Glendale neighborhood. The project is phased to distribute efforts across multiple years based
on available funding.
The primary goal is creating a safer urban environment for all users, especially pedestrians and
cyclists. Phase 1 focuses on 800 W, a major connector between the 9-Line and California Street bike
lanes that currently lacks traffic calming measures and connects to the Sorenson Multicultural
on planned Livable Zone 12 improvements.
Phase 1 Projects:
--- Seven speed humps along 800 W between 900 S and 1300 S, providing physical speed reduction
while maintaining bike access and emergency vehicle passage.
Phase 2 Projects:
--- Emery/California intersection improvements with upgraded bike lane paint and detection
--- Raised crosswalks at Fremont/800 W and Remington Way/800 W near school bus stops
--- Neighborhood Byway signage on Emery and Navajo Streets between Indiana Avenue and
California
--- New flashing beacon (RRFB) at 800 W/900 S with pedestrian refuge island
Future Phase 3 could include chicanes, traffic circles, or additional pedestrian improvements on 800
W.
This project aims to create safer neighborhood connections, encourage active transportation, reduce
emissions, and foster a more livable environment. It aligns with Salt Lake City's sustainability goals,
public health initiatives, and Vision Zero policy to eliminate traffic injuries and fatalities by 2035.
42 1700 East Asphalt and Fence
Constituent Application; Engineering Division
Asphalt slope below metal fence from 2229 South 1700 East to 2283 South 1700 East. This
notified of the weeds that are growing below the fence. The metal fence needs to be painted. It
has not been painted since it was installed in 2005.
2
Maintenance
7
Page 23
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 525,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 4,067,000$
CDCIP 2,597,000$ 2,597,000$
MAYOR 2,597,000$ 2,597,000$
COUNCIL -$
signal at the California Ave/Concord St Intersection
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
This project aims to increase the safety of pedestrians at an intersection used by residents
including UTA public transit riders, Glendale Branch Library visitors, and minor students at
Mountain View Elementary, Dual Immersion Academy, and Glendale Middle School, by
providing additional funding to revise previously funded plans for an RRFB at the location to a
more secure HAWK signal.
44 Event Infrastructure and Pavilion Replacements for Vibrant, Safe City Parks
Public Lands Department
This project will transform several public parks into vibrant hubs for community gatherings
and public events by investing in essential event infrastructure, and replacing failing pavilions.
Funding will replace failing pavilions in select parks ideal for hosting small family and
corporate events, and add amenities such as permanent power distribution boxes, improved
lighting, restrooms, and durable areas to accommodate stages, vehicles, portable restrooms, or
other structures to make our parks more friendly and accommodating to many different kinds
of event.
These upgrades will support a variety of activities, from cultural festivals and concerts to
volunteer projects and neighborhood celebrations, fostering community connection and
enriching public spaces. By equipping our parks with the necessary infrastructure, we aim to
reduce event setup costs, minimize environmental impacts, and increase accessibility for
organizers and participants alike to make gathering with our communities more accessible.
The benefits of this application are four-fold:
(1) Reduce the current maintenance impacts of concentrating every City and special event
within the same few parks
(2) Reduce event costs for organizers
(3) Activate more of our parks, especially those that are otherwise ready to be supportive of
more events (open space, parking, etc.) in Council districts that do not traditionally host many
events
(4) Ensure that our park supply can meet event demand so that there can be more events
programmed in our parks every year
This initiative aligns with our vision of creating safe, inclusive, and engaging public spaces that
strengthen community bonds and enhance quality of life for residents and visitors.
2
CW
Page 24
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 500,000$
CDCIP 500,000$ 500,000$
MAYOR 500,000$ 500,000$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 250,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 322,996$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
Install shade cloths over up to five existing playgrounds, listed below. In the summer,
playground equipment is too hot to use by 10am. By providing shade to the existing
playgrounds, the community will enjoy increased use of play equipment for the full day in the
summer. Shade clothes will also help with the prevention of skin cancer.
1. Meadows Park
2. 17th South River Park
3. 11th Avenue Park (playground replacement included in the Public Lands Department's ADA
CIP application for FY 25/26)
4. Sherwood Park
5. Modesto Park (playground upgrades or replacement included in the upcoming Parks GO
Bond and CIP-funded improvement projects along the Jordan River corridor)
6. Richmond Park (playground upgrades or replacement included in the upcoming Parks GO
Bond and CIP-funded improvement project)
7. Herman Franks Park
46 Alleyway Improvements 2026
Engineering Division
This annual program, kicked off in 2021, funds reconstruction or rehabilitation of deteriorated
City alleyways, including pavement and drainage improvements as necessary..
47 Marmalade Gateway Roundabout
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
This plan is a chance to enhance the area with better "Marmalade" neighborhood branding
while also providing much-needed improvements to make the roadways safer.
This plan will serve two purposes, making Marmalade a more recognized neighborhood but at
the same time providing safety to the residents and students that attend the three surrounding
schools.
The plan seeks to redesign the 300 North 200 West intersection with a roundabout allowing a
Marmalade sign or art installation. In addition, a separate traffic calming project will install a
speed bump immediately to the west on 300 North.
CW
Maintenance
CW
3
Page 25
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 680,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR 680,000$ 680,000$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 163,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
Constituent Application; Engineering Division
Request repaving alley between 3rd & 4th Aves and Virginia and Alta streets
48 Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail, and Safety Improvements
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
There is a dire need for health and safety improvements along Rose Park Ln. This project would meet
all your priorities for the application year. More than a beautification, this project really addresses
your top priorities of unfinished projects, Health and Safety, Jordan River Parkway, and city-owned
land. The Urban Forestry Division has committed to providing trees and installation at the new sites
on Rose Park Lane. This project would extend and complete the Rose Park Lane trail, remove illegal
overnight commercial truck parking on unfinished land, and build infrastructure to sustain
commercial truck traffic on Rose Park Ln.
The entire stretch of Rose Park Ln is highly visible and highly neglected. The entire stretch of the
existing Rose Park Ln. was irrigated 7 years ago for the WestPointe run-off ditch (large grassy
area/detention basin at the corner of Rose Park Ln and 1700N), but this irrigation was never
extended for the remainder of that stretch of road or utilized. This lane is highly visible from I-215
with large volumes of traffic going to the beautiful soccer fields just a few feet up the road. This has
increased the traffic and speed of that traffic on Rose Park Ln. Safety is an issue as cars will continue
to use highway speeds down that road upward of 60 MPH.
Fixing the trail and planting trees with irrigation on Rose Park Ln would greatly improve community
morale and safety for the families that walk with their children and pets, and bike and run on this
trail. Adding trees along Rose Park Ln will also help in reducing air pollution, high summer heat, and
traffic noise, also repairing/replacing the sidewalk to make it ADA-compliant would also create
handicap accessibility for residents who are currently unable to utilize this walkway.
This area has been neglected for a long time and needs reinvestment to provide shade, accessibility,
and other environmental benefits to this neighborhood.
1
Maintenance
3
Page 26
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 500,000$
CDCIP 480,000$ 480,000$
MAYOR 480,000$ 480,000$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 2,765,000$
CDCIP 140,000$ 140,000$
MAYOR -$ -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 388,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
50 Concord St to Alzheimer's Jordan River Cleanup
Constituent Application, Public Lands Department
I wanted to bring to your attention a specific area of the river that is in great need of
improvements and enhancements. It is a city owned parcel at the end of Concord St. and
Pierpont Ave. It often goes unmaintained and has been a section with a lot of criminal issues
and illegal dumping. The city recently added a gate, a no camping sign, and a no trespass sign.
This is an area where people used to be able to walk down to the river and engage with nature;
however, due to its unmaintained and underutilized nature, it has been closed off by the city
and has been home to multiple encampments recently.
The city owns a large piece of land that accesses the river from Concord. In addition it owns the
parcels across the river to the east and west. I believe this would be the perfect location for a
bridge over the river. The neighbors in this area do not have an easy access to the Jordan river
trail, or a good way to cross I-80 as a pedestrian. If neighbors want to travel north, they have to
walk down to the freeway overpass on Navajo and down 200S to connect to the trail. Or they
have to walk out to 300 S and go east to connect to the trail at Alzheimer's Park.
Because the city owns land on both sides of the river, it should be a much easier place to work
with. Instead of a fenced off access point I would love to see the city make improvements that
the community can use.
The scope of the request will be 1) create a new public nature space on the west side of
Alzheimer's park/Jordan River, 2) add improvements to the walkway on 300 S to increase
comfort and walkability to the JRT, and 3) conduct a feasibility study for a bridge connecting
the east and west sides of the river.
51 Nature Park at Bonneville
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
The Nature Park at Bonneville will turn two and a half acres of unusable fire hazard into a small
nature park for the surrounding residents. We have the support of SLC's Golf Division for this
project (see Supporting Documents).
This area has been used by three generations of children in this neighborhood, but was recently
fenced off for safety reasons. It has a large amount of dead wood, creating a significant fire
hazard to neighbors in the area. We see evidence of "campsites" and drug paraphernalia left
behind; as well as large piles of concrete and asphalt chunks, dead and broken trees from the
a small nature park with a shredded bark walking path utilizing bark chips from dead wood
processed from the area; three benches, access to water to establish drought-tolerant native
material will be cleaned out, but not all - leaving a natural area on the northerwestern side for
our native wildlife habitat and protection. We will also work to protect the habitat of great
horned owls and various hawks living in the area. We propose two entrances: (1) south end of
2200 East, (2) east side of Connor St. at property line to the course. The south end is at the
current Maintenance Building and will have no access to the nature park from this area. Also
included is the addition of native trees, shrubs and pollinator plants utilizing free or low-cost
programs like the Utah Pollinator Habitat Program, currently offering 90-900 seedlings for
free each September. This will require access to water but not an irrigation system. The end
result will offer a safe, natural area for both adults and children to enjoy nature and her wildlife
habitat in our highly developed.
52 Safe Side Streets North Extension
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
The project being submitted is a "completely separate project" to a past CIP project within the
bl k h h id f h bl k i h " f id j "
Park - Maintenance 2
Park - New 6
Street - Safety 7
Page 27
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 117,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
same block. The south side of the block is the "Sugar House Safe Side Streets Project."
https://www.slc.gov/transportation/2023/12/08/safesidestreets/
streets involved are:
1000 East between 1700 South - Garfield Avenue (1860 South)
Blaine Avenue 900 East - 1100 East
Wilson Avenue 1000 East - 1100 East
1000 East is an iconic byway and a prime destination for active transportation. At the south
end of the block is the heart of Sugar House and the north end a children's destination,
Westminster Park. And further north is an elementary school, Emerson Elementary.
The goal for the residents of this area is to decrease cut through traffic and slow vehicle speeds.
Also to promote safer streets for bicyclists, walkers, joggers, skateboarders and alike. The street
calming efforts within this block are not systemic. The residents of this area are asking for the
completion of street calming within the neighborhood.
*** The residents of the project area, accept the possibility that this project may have to be
achieved in sections. If so, we would like 1000 East between 1700 South to Garfield Avenue
Also, the majority of active transportation is on that byway as well.
53 Milk Block Bike Spa
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
A full service bike "spa" between Harvey Milk Blvd. bike path and sidewalk on the North side of
the Milk Block (416 E 900 S) and a similar style but slightly larger bike spa at the SLC
Downtown Library located to the SE of the main Library building to replace the existing
"alphabet" bike rack.
The purpose of these spas is for the City to go beyond merely accommodating bicyclists and
provide safe, secure, and convenient bicycle parking that will encourage citizens to leave their
car at home and ride to work, to do shopping, or to recreate. This project will accelerate and/or
accentuate City bicycle infrastructure and plans.
CW
Page 28
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 230,600$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 350,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 120,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
This is a safe street crossing and air quality improvement project. Utilizing crossing signals and
appropriate road markings, the crosswalk will provide a safe signalized crossing for an
neighborhood area where k-12 school age children and community recreation users cross a 5
quality and heat island effect on the street. As of July 2024, the surface temperature of the
street was measured at 137 degrees Fahrenheit
56 1200 East Traffic Circles
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
Two Traffic Circles, featuring appropriate art, to be built at two busy residential intersections
enhance vehicular, cycling and pedestrian safety with traffic calming. This project proposes to
follow the NACTO guidlines.
54 Main & Broadway Shade
Constituent Application; Engineering Division
Improve and enhance the sidewalk and parking median along the north side of 300 South (ie.
Broadway in front of the historic Clift Building) extending from the alley for the 222 parking
garage to Main Street. This stretch of sidewalk lacks the greenery and other shade and seating
options that are found on most streets within the Central Business District. These deficiencies
would be addressed with planting of trees, placement of planters and bench seating. Safety
issues for bicyclists and scooters would be addressed with larger planters and street paint to
clearly delineate car lanes from the bicycle lane at the corner of Main Street.
4
6
Street - Safety 4
Page 29
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 3,000,000$
CDCIP 2,760,500$ 2,760,500$
MAYOR 3,000,000$ 99,500$ 2,900,500$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 100,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 249,865$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
Public Lands Department
Where the Civic Campus and Green Loop intersect, there is a valuable opportunity to create an
iconic and vibrant event space in the heart of downtown. This request of $3,000,000 is a 20%
of the projected project cost and serves as seed money for alternative funding sources. The
Green Loop project reimagines part of the City's underutilized public rights-of-way as
functional green space with nature-based solutions to improve the environment and human
well-being.
Transformation of the public right-of-way requires design and construction of both above-
ground improvements (sidewalks, paths, bikeways, plazas, roadway, forest, plantings, park
features, and rain gardens) and below-ground infrastructure (public and private utilities).
Project costs include design and construction of above-ground green space, roadway
reconstruction, and some utility (public and private) relocation on 200 East from
approximately 350 South to 550 South.
The intent of this application is to allocate funding to bring strategic segments of the Green
Loop to construction as early as 2026, particularly where there are timely opportunities to
leverage nearby active projects, grant funds, and/or philanthropy.
Since 2019, Salt Lake City's multi-departmental Green Loop project team, comprised of staff
from Community and Neighborhoods, the Mayor's Office, Public Lands, Public Services, and
Public Utilities has been collaborating to bring this complex project to reality. In 2024, concept
design for 200 East was completed. Further design for the Civic Block will integrate the Green
Loop with Library Square visioning and Washington Square security improvements.
4
58 Wasatch Dr & 2100 South Project
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
The intersection of 2100 South and Wasatch Drive has become a safety concern to residents,
motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. Residential traffic calming attempts such as signs, parked
vehicles, and traffic cones have been unsuccessful at slowing motorists. The intersection poses
a safety risk with its awkwardly placed stop signs and poor sight lines for safely crossing as a
pedestrian or cyclist. We are requesting your consideration for the installation of two Speed
Cushions and a Speed Radar Sign in advance of this intersection. We believe that installing this
traffic calming near the intersection will reduce the speeds of vehicles and thus reduce the risk
of accidents and enhance cyclist and pedestrian safety.
59 Federal Heights Safety Upgrades
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
We need speedbumps placed on key streets that receive unabated traffic, particularly downhill
streets. We receive a high volume of cut-through traffic going to and from the University of
Utah and the hospitals. Vehicles are consistently going 35mph+ on our streets, and the
cars flying down them and speeds sometimes 2x the speed limit. Many families, including ours,
on Sigsbee have young children and we're persistently worried that an accident is going to
occur, resulting in material harm to ours or neighboring kids.
6
3
Page 30
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 280,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
Constituent Application; Public Lands Department
This application is for a community Garden to be constructed on 700 East & Coatsville Ave.
Parcel is located on a UDOT parcel on the north side of Coatsville Ave. This is the second year
this project has been submitted. This is a vacant lot owned by UDOT in which SLC has a
contract to maintain it. One of the reasons the application was not approved last year because
of the uncertainly of the extent of the property required for the construction of the 700 East
Shared Use Path. That project is in the final stages of construction so that variable is now
known and UDOT would now be in a position to allow the project on the property.
Wasatch Community Gardens also was not sure they had the resources to manage another
garden last year because they were committed to open 2 very large west side community
gardens this year. The earliest this garden would become operational is the spring of 2026, so I
am confident that the bandwidth will be available.
One might point out that there is already a community garden at 1700 South and 700 East but
it is limited by the fact that they are numerous large trees on that lot so about 50% of it is
shaded for all or a portion of the day, hence it is not a very productive garden. I would estimate
that to be about 50% based on the area that is used for gardens and what is being grown there.
A corollary to this application would be to relocate that existing garden to this new proposed
and much more productive location. The local community council has a master plan on green
space in the neighborhood and the location of the existing community garden would make a
much better dog park. The green space at the recently closed Hawthorne Elementary School,
would hopefully become a new SLC neighborhood park. This would be in conjunction with a
new dog park across 1700 South and a productive community garden another half block south
of it.
5
Page 31
Streets
Impact Fees FOF Transit FOF Streets Class C
(gas tax)
1/4 ¢ & 5th 5th
Sales Taxes
Council District#Title, Lead Office, and Description Totals General
Fund
FOF
Other
Parks
Impact
Fees
Project Category
REQUEST 150,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR -$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 500,000$
CDCIP -$
MAYOR 500,000$ 500,000$
COUNCIL -$
REQUEST 66,015,717$
CDCIP 40,180,000$ 7,000,000$ 1,100,000$ 8,800,000$ 880,000$ 900,000$ 1,000,000$ 10,500,000$ 10,000,000$
MAYOR 44,193,236$ 10,413,236$ 1,100,000$ 8,800,000$ 880,000$ 900,000$ 1,000,000$ 10,500,000$ 10,600,000$
COUNCIL -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
TOTALS
Constituent Application; Transportation Division
Since 2016, the neighborhoods surrounding East High School, as per current Salt Lake City
Government protocol, have recorded and reported numerous violent incidents including, but
not limited to, groups of East High School students as well as unrecognized groups of adults
and high-school aged students circling the neighborhood in vehicles before coming to the
neighborhood and jumping unsuspecting students and/or engaging in large (60+) assault with
battery; gangs of street racers weaponizing vehicles to threaten and intimidate other students
by side and in tandem) and other high speed driving around the schools and along the 800 and
900 S corridors from 900 East to 1400 East. I have personally been working with several
specialized City departments to conceive of an engineering plan to restore safety, livability, and
hospitality to this high impact area in the nexus of East High School that will serve residents,
business, as well as predominantly westside students that visit these neighborhoods during the
school day. The departments that have been consulted are Transportation, Enforcement, and
Salt Lake City Police Department, the Mayor's Office and Council member Mano, as well as the
District Attorney's office to make sure that we are working within a legal and civil rights-
as East High School faces 1300 East and has a zero access policy to a from campus to the rear
two-thirds of campus making it impossible for the SLCSD staff to respond to violent road-
related issues that owned and operated by Salt Lake City. The challenge we face is that none of
the stakeholders within the city or school district are on the same page in addressing these
issues. What is needed is a planning effort that brings all stakeholders together to solve these
critical issues.
62 Vacant and Leased City-owned Property Maintenance
Real Estate Services Division
Note there is a total of $700,000 of which $200,000 is the general maintenance base budget
separate from the competitive portion of CIP and used for repairs, security, and utilities at
vacant and leased city-owned properties. The Administration is requesting that the $500,000
for development specific uses in FY2026 be split into two parts:
- Up to $400,000 for building improvements to the Fisher Mansion that may include historic
rehabilitation, building systems, and structural improvements.
- Up to $100,000 for expenses related to predevelopment costs and development of a
community benefits agreement for the Fleet Block.
CW
Maintenance
CW
Page 32
Categorized CIP Project Applications Project #Request
Mayor
Recommendation
Bridge - Maintenance 1,000,000 1,000,000
Bridge Preservation Program 10 1,000,000 1,000,000
Curb/Gutter - Maintenance 954,720 -
East Central Community Council 1200 East Median Restoration Proposal (300-400 South & 400-
500 South)25 954,720 -
Facilities - Maintenance 1,000,000 500,000
Facilities - New 1,614,568 1,078,807
Facilities - Maintenance 1,980,868 1,980,868
Multi-Modal - Maintenance 100,000 100,000
Multi-Modal - New 2,094,724 855,724
Park - Maintenance 22,282,752 13,163,561
11 1,107,117 1,107,117
Park - New 6,875,000 3,590,000
Sidewalk - Maintenance 750,000 750,000
Sidewalk - New 1,730,600 1,500,000
Street - Maintenance 12,211,610 9,874,276
Street - Safety 7,816,698 4,300,000
43 525,000 -
Street - Signals 4,604,177 4,500,000
33 104,177 -
Transit 1,000,000 1,000,000
Grand Total 66,015,717 44,193,236
Mayor’s Recommended
Capital Improvement
Program Budget
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS Page:
FY 2025-26 PROJECTS OVERVIEW 1
FY 2025-26 CAPITAL PROJECTS SUMMARY 5
DEBT SERVICE CIP
DEBT SERVICE CIP 19
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SOURCES 23
GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
Vision Zero Corridors & Safety Improvements Citywide 2026 27
Safe, Open and Clean Park Restrooms 28
Parks' Legal Compliance with 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design 29
Street Reconstruction 2026 30
700 North (2200 West to Redwood Road)31
Public Way Concrete 32
Liberty Lake Dredging and Aeration System Replacement 33
20 Acres of Irrigation System Replacements & Supportive Waterwise Landscaping 34
Bridge Preservation Program 35
Sugar House Park - 50/50 Cost Share for One Pavilion Replacement & Critical Infrastructure Upgrades 36
Facilities Replacement and Renewal 37
Traffic Signal Replacements & Upgrades 2026 38
Transit Capital Program 2026 / Funding Our Future Transit 39
Missing Sidewalks & Bikeway Network Gaps 2026 40
Street Overlays 2026 41
Jordan Park Skatepark Expansion 42
GREENbike Federal Grant Match 2026; Bike Rack Replacements 2026 43
Livable Streets Program 2026 44
1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk and Repave Street 45
Pedestrian Safety / HAWK at Richmond St. and Zenith Ave.46
Three Sport Court Replacements 47
Playground Replacements 48
Central City 600 East Byway Safety Improvements 49
Riverside Basketball Court Renovation 50
PSB EV Charging Expansion 51
Event Infrastructure and Pavilion Replacements for Vibrant, Safe City Parks 52
Playground Shade 53
Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail, and Safety Improvements 54
Concord St to Alzheimer's Jordan River Cleanup 55
Civic Campus and Green Loop Implementation 56
Cost Overrun 57
Percent for Art 58
Table of Contents
ENTERPRISE FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
Dock 3 Door Replacement 62
Gateway Skybridge Door Replacement 63
34R Glycol Pump Station Modifications 64
Taxiways A&B Modifications (Design)65
Truck Water Fill Station 66
SVRA Control Tower NEPA & Siting Study 67
SVRA Dual Taxiways 68
Economy Lot Pavement Reconstruction (Design)69
Economy Lot Pavement Rehabilitation 70
Economy Parking Lot EVCS 71
Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure - Phase V (FY26)72
PAB Electrical Equipment Upgrade 73
Rental Car Overflow Storage Lot Improvements 74
Rental Car QTA Equipment Replacement 75
Rental Car Reallocation 76
SkyChef Building Demolition 77
2300 West Realignment 78
NWS Sewer Main Replacement 79
Terminal Drive Resurfacing 80
GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
Cart Path Improvements 82
Irrigation Improvements - Rose Park 83
Irrigation Improvements - Nibley Park 84
Maintenance Buildings 85
Maintenance Equipment 86
New Construction Projects 87
On Course Restroom 88
Parking Lot Surfacing 89
Pump Replacement 90
Range Fencing 91
Roof Repair 92
Tee Box Leveling 93
Windows & Doors 94
Retaining Wall on #1 and Stairs on #10 95
PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
Water Main Replacements 98
Treatment Plant Improvements 99
Deep Pump Wells 100
Meter Change-Out Program 101
Table of Contents
Water Service Connections 102
Storage Reservoirs 103
Culverts, Flumes & Bridges 104
Distribution Reservoirs (Tanks)105
Maintenance & Repair Shops (Water Utility)106
Treatment Plants 107
Collection Lines 108
Maintenance & Repair Shops (Sewer Utility)109
Storm Drain Lines 110
Riparian Corridor Improvements 111
Landscaping 112
Storm Water Lift Stations 113
Detention Basins 114
Maintenance & Repair Shops (Stormwater Utility)115
Street Lighting Projects 116
COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AGENCY CAPITAL PROJECTS
City Creek Daylighting 118
Japantown Art 119
900 S Freeway Underpass Infrastructure 120
Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank
CIP Summary
Documents
This page intentionally left blank
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Introduction and Overview
Salt Lake City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a multi-year planning program of capital expenditures needed
to replace or expand the City’s public infrastructure. The principal element that guides the City in determining the
annual infrastructure improvements and budget schedule is the current fiscal year capital budget.
The City CIP Budget Process includes a review by the Community Development & Capital Improvement Program
(CDCIP) Board, consisting of community residents from each district. The CDCIP Board scores projects on a variety
of criteria and provides funding recommendations to the Mayor.
The Mayor considers the CDCIP recommendations as the Administration prepares its funding recommendations for
the City Council as part of the Annual Recommended Budget. The City Council reviews the recommendations of the
Mayor and the CDCIP Board and carefully analyzes each of the proposed projects before allocating funding and
adopting the final CIP budget. The details of the recommended FY2025-26 CIP Budget are included in this book.
In considering major capital projects, the City looks at the potential operating impact of each project. New capital
improvements often entail ongoing expenses for routine operations. Upon completion or acquisition, the repair and
maintenance of new facilities often require additional positions to maintain the new infrastructure. Conversely, a
positive contribution, such as a reduction in ongoing repairs and maintenance of a capital project, is factored into
the decision-making process.
Each project includes a section for estimated future maintenance and/or operations expenses, where the
departments have included projections of any increases to future operating costs.
The City also reviews all CIP projects to determine the progress. All projects older than three years that do not show
significant progress are then considered for recapture, allowing those funds to be used on more shovel-ready
projects. The Administration continuously evaluates the City’s funding of its Capital Improvement Program. Because
the proceeds from debt financing are considered a source for funding the City’s capital improvement projects, the
City analyzes the effect that issuance of additional debt would have on its debt capacity and current debt ratio.
Salt Lake City Resolution No. 29 of 2017 / Salt Lake City Council Capital and Debt Management
Policies
Resolution No. 29 of 2017 provides the framework for project funding recommendations. Its guidance helps clarify
the expectations of the City’s Capital Improvement Program and the steps the Administration should take in
determining how to best address the City’s deferred and long-term maintenance needs.
Some of the policies guiding the CDCIP Board and the Administration include:
– A definition of a capital improvement as having a useful life of five or more years and cannot have a
recurring capital outlay such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine. It also clarifies that a capital outlay does not
include maintenance expenses such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches.
– A capital improvement must be a City asset and have a cost of $50,000 or more, with few exceptions.
– Salt Lake City aims to maintain its physical assets at a level adequate to protect its capital investments and
minimize maintenance and replacement costs.
– Priorities are given to projects that preserve and protect the health and safety of the community; are
mandated by the state and/or federal government; and provide for the renovation of existing facilities
resulting in the preservation of the community’s prior investment.
– The recapture of Capital Improvement Program funds during the first budget amendment of each year if an
existing balance remains on a completed project.
– Debt Service (excluding G.O. Bonding).
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
1 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
FY 2025-26 Capital Improvement Allocations
Salt Lake City’s FY2025-26 adopted CIP budget appropriates $267,450,797 for CIP, utilizing General Funds, Class “C”
Funds, Impact Fee Funds, Quarter Cent and 5th 5th Sales Tax Funds, Community Reinvestment Agency Funds,
Enterprise Funds, and other public and private funds.
The City’s General Fund accounts for all debt service on outstanding Sales and Excise Tax Revenue bonds through a
payment from the City CIP contribution, except for the Eccles Theater project. The Library Fund covers the Local
Building Authority Lease Revenue bonds for Glendale and Marmalade Libraries while debt associated with the
construction of two fire stations is funded through CIP. Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue bonds are funded through
the City’s Class C Road fund. Funds to pay debt service, equaling $13,077,844, are included in the adopted annual
budget.
Outstanding Sales and Excise Tax Revenue bonds financed a variety of the City’s capital improvement projects.
Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue bonds funded the reconstruction of Class C roads throughout the City.
A total of $12,255,724 was recommended for Transportation projects. Of this amount, the budget appropriates
$5,278,724 of Class C funds, $880,000 of Street Impact Fee funds, $900,000 of Funding our Future funds, and
$5,197,000 in ¼ Cent and 5th 5th Sales Tax funding. Programs funded include Vision Zero Corridors & Safety
Improvements, Traffic Signal Replacement, Transit Capital, Missing Sidewalks & Bikeway Network Gaps, and Livable
Streets. Projects funded include GREENBike Federal Grant Match and Bike Rack Replacements, Pedestrian Safety
and Byway Safety Improvements.
The recommended budget for Parks, Trails, and Open Space capital improvement projects includes a total
appropriation of $16,753,561 from the General Fund, Parks Impact Fee funds, and Funding our Future funds.
Projects funded include Park Restrooms, Accessible Design Upgrades, Liberty Lake Dredging and Aeration System
Replacement, Irrigation System Replacements & Waterwise Landscaping, Pavilion Replacement and Critical
Infrastructure Upgrades, Jordan Park Skatepark Expansion, Sport Court and Playground Replacements and
Renovations, Event Infrastructure and Pavilion Replacements, Playground Shade, Rose Park Lane Beautification,
Trail, and Safety Improvements, Concord Street to Alzheimer’s Park Jordan River Cleanup, and Civic Campus and
Green Loop Implementation.
Public Services capital improvement recommended budget includes a total appropriation of $14,683,951. Of this
amount, the budget appropriates $3,059,675 from the General Fund, $5,221,276 of Class C funding, $1,000,000 of
Funding our Future funds, and $5,403,000 in ¼ Cent and 5th 5th Sales Tax funding. Programs funded include Street
Reconstruction, 700 North (2200 West to Redwood Road), Public Way Concrete, Bridge Preservation, Facilities
Replacement and Renewal, Street Overlays, 1200 East Curb, Gutter, and Repaving, and Public Safety Building Electric
Vehicle Charging Expansion.
Capital Projects
The CIP pages include details for each recommended project for the FY2025-26 Budget. These pages provide a
breakout of the funding recommendations and future costs associated with each project. The total for capital
projects in the FY2025-26 budget is $43,693,236.
Enterprise Fund Projects
The City’s enterprise functions; Airport, Water, Sewer, Storm Water, Street Lighting, Community Reinvestment,
Refuse Collection and Golf – are by nature, very capital intensive. The budgets for these activities reflect the need to
maintain the integrity and capacity of the current capital infrastructure and its functionality.
Airport Fund – The Department of Airports is an enterprise fund of Salt Lake City Corporation and does not receive any general fund revenues to support the operation of the City’s system of airports. The Department of Airports (the
Airport) has 674 employee budgeted positions and is responsible for managing, developing, and promoting airports
that provide quality transportation facilities and services, and a convenient travel experience.
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
2 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
The Fiscal Year 2026 budget continues to see modest growth in enplanements, revenues, as well as expenditures.
The Salt Lake City International Airport (SLCIA) continues to benefit from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)
grants awarded for FY2025. The BIL grants, along with the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants, and the
Airport Terminal Program (ATP) grants, will continue to provide much needed and critical funding for airport capital
infrastructure projects that are moving from design into actual construction. The Airport will be bringing on ten
gates located on Concourse B in October 2025. These openings bring additional staffing and maintenance staff
requirements while seeing the complete elimination of the remaining hardstand operations.
The developed FY26 budget continues to provide positive financial benefits with increased passengers and revenues
that help offset increased operating expenses. The Airport will continue to fund important capital projects. These
projects include Phase III and Phase IV of construction of gates on Concourse B. In addition, critical projects found
in the airfield, landside, and auxiliary airports will continue to be funded to ensure that all Airport’s owned facilities
keep up with critical infrastructure to support the growth we are currently experiencing as well as the growth we are
projecting into future years.
Public Utilities Funds – Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) has four distinct utilities, water, sewer, storm water, and street lighting. Each operates as an independent enterprise fund, meaning they are not supported by tax dollars. Instead, funding comes from user fees, fund reserves, revenue bonds, and occasionally grants or subsidized loans from state or federal sources.
To support major infrastructure investments, SLCDPU is utilizing a Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act
(WIFIA) loan to finance a portion of the water reclamation facility construction. Additionally, a Building Resilient
Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant is supporting the City Creek Water Treatment Plant reconstruction, and
an American Rescue Plan Act grant is financing the floodplain remapping project in the Granary District Floodplain.
Utility rates, set based on cost-of-service analysis, ensure that customers pay for the services they receive. Given
the infrastructure-heavy nature of these utilities, SLCDPU relies on a long-term project and financing strategy to
effectively manage its assets.
The capital budget is organized by fund, with detailed cost centers under each. For Fiscal Year 2026, SLCDPU is
managing over 82 capital projects across its four utility funds, in addition to ongoing projects. Many capital projects
span multiple fiscal years – often designed in one year and built in the next. The budget prioritizes high-need
projects identified through the Department’s Capital Asset Program (CAP).
The largest project underway is the replacement of the water reclamation facility, with estimated completion in
Fiscal Year 2027. Other system components are also aging and will require increased investment in the coming
years. For instance, SLCDPU’s three water treatment plants, built in the 1950s and early 1960s, are due for major
updates. City Creek’s reconstruction is scheduled for completion in 2027, while planning is underway for two
remaining plants.
SLCDPU’s capital planning is shaped by a complex mix of federal, state, and local regulations, as well as water rights
and exchange agreement obligations – all of which influence project priorities and timeline.
CRA Funds – The Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency (CRA) strengthens neighborhoods and commercial districts to improve livability, create economic opportunity and foster authentic, equitable communities. The CRA
utilizes a powerful set of financial and planning tools to support strategic development projects that enhance the
City’s housing opportunities, commercial vitality, public spaces, and environmental sustainability. The CRA’s primary
source of funds for the projects include property tax increment and program income revenue, depending on the
specific budget account.
The CRA often participates with Salt Lake City in the redevelopment or construction of city owned infrastructure
projects. As part of the CRA Budget Policy, Capital Projects are defined as any project that anticipates multi-year
funding. The allocation of funds for these projects is part of the budget approval process and is typically contingent
on the CRA Board authorizing appropriation once the specific projects costs and details are known. Depending on
the project, the timeline for this process may not follow the City’s CIP schedule or requirements for approval.
The CRA fiscal year 2026 budget process proposes three potential City infrastructure projects:
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
3 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
• City Creek Daylighting: Allocates an additional $100,000 towards implementation of the daylighting of City
Creek along the Folsom Trail from 800 West to 1000 West. The total project, aimed at improving access to
nature, water quality, and flood mitigation, is estimated to cost between $15 million and $20 million.
• Japantown Art: Designates an additional $37,733 for enhancing the cultural landscape through various art
installations recommended in the Japantown Design Strategy that celebrate and preserve Japantown’s
heritage. The initiative aims to beautify the neighborhood and provide an engaging artistic experience for
both residents and visitors.
• 900 S Freeway Underpass Infrastructure: Designates a total of $50,000 for improvements to the Mead
Avenue underpass. The initiative aims to support installation of improvements to enhance open space and
encourage activation.
Sustainability Fund - Sustainability operations enable continuing compliance with federal, state and local regulations related to landfill gas collection, closing portions of the landfill, and constructing a new landfill cell within
the permitted footprint included in the master plan. Sustainability proposed no projects for FY 2025-26.
Golf Fund - The Golf Division operates seven full-service golf courses at six Salt Lake City locations providing quality recreational experiences at a competitive price for Salt Lake City residents and visitors from surrounding cities and various out of state locations. Golf Course Capital Projects are funded, primarily, from excess revenue generated by user fees. The Golf Division has produced excess revenue over the past 3 years and is able to begin re-investing funds into long-overdue projects.
In addition, for the FY22 budget the Golf Division implemented a Golf CIP Fee increase from $1 to $2 per every 9
holes played to bring more capital into the Golf CIP Fund to increase funding from this source for additional future
projects.
The Golf Division has budgeted $13,612,735 for Capital Improvement Projects in FY26. The Golf Division is in the
middle of a multi-year project to improve tee box hitting surfaces by re-leveling and re-sodding many of the tee box
areas at each course and has allocated $60,000 in FY26 from the Golf CIP Fund. The Golf Division is in the middle of
a multi-year project to repair existing cart paths and construct some new carts paths and has allocated $625,000 for
FY26. The Golf Division will undergo a major project installing a new irrigation system at the Rose Park golf course
($5,500,000) and Nibley Park golf course ($3,000,000). Other significant projects include new maintenance buildings
at Bonneville and Rose Park, on-course restrooms at 4 golf courses and driving range hitting facility at Glendale golf
course.
As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses, the Golf Division will be using
$501,328 in FY26 to purchase additional equipment.
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
4 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Deb
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Debt Service Projects
Sales Tax Series 2014B Bond $ 739,038 $ 739,038
Sales Tax Series 2016A Bond $ 1,966,520 $ 1,966,520
Sales Tax Series 2019A Bond $ 352,975 $ 352,975
Sales Tax Series 2022B Bond $ 2,003,475 $ 2,003,475
Sales Tax Series 2022C Bond $ 3,090,966 $ 3,090,966
ESCO Debt Service to Bond $ 924,700 $ 924,700
Fire Station #3 $ 675,575 $ 675,575
Fire Station #14 $ 496,950 $ 496,950
General Obligation Series 2025 Bond $ 2,827,645 $ 2,827,645
Debt Service Projects Total $ 13,077,844 $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 13,077,844
Ong
o
i
n
g
Ongoing Projects
Crime Lab $ 600,000 $ 600,000
City Leases $ 560,000 $ 560,000
Facilities Maintenance $ 350,000 $ 350,000
Urban Trail Maintenance $ 200,000 $ 200,000
Public Lands Maintenance $ 250,000 $ 195,573 $ 445,573
Vacant City-owned Property Maintenance and Development
$ 700,000 $ 700,000
Ongoing Projects Total $ 2,460,000 $ 195,573 $ — $ — $ 200,000 $ — $ 2,855,573
Oth
e
r
O
n
g
o
i
n
g
Other Ongoing
Public Services- ESCO County Steiner $ 155,300 $ 155,300
Public Services - Memorial House $ 20,000 $ 20,000
Other Ongoing $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 175,300 $ 175,300
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / 1/4 Cent & 5th 5th Sales Tax / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2026
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES
¼¢ & 5th 5th SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
5 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
New
C
I
P
New/Maintenance Projects Total
Vision Zero Corridors & Safety Improvements Citywide 2026
$ 230,000 $ 2,070,000 $ 2,300,000
Safe, Open and Clean Park Restrooms $ 1,596,000 $ 456,000 $ 2,052,000
Parks' Legal Compliance with 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design
$ 1,370,929 $ 1,314,000 $ 2,684,929
Street Reconstruction 2026 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,790,676 $ 600,000 $ 4,390,676
700 North (2200 West to Redwood Road)$ 1,680,600 $ 1,680,600
Public Way Concrete $ 750,000 $ 750,000
Liberty Lake Dredging and Aeration System Replacement
$ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
20 Acres of Irrigation System Replacements & Supportive Waterwise Landscaping
$ 1,007,515 $ 10,000 $ 1,017,515
Bridge Preservation Program $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
Sugar House Park - 50/50 Cost Share for One Pavilion Replacement & Critical Infrastructure Upgrades
$ 1,005,117 $ 102,000 $ 1,107,117
Facilities Replacement and Renewal $ 1,980,868 $ 1,980,868
Traffic Signal Replacements & Upgrades 2026 $ 3,600,000 $ 400,000 $ 4,000,000
Transit Capital Program 2026 / Funding Our Future Transit
$ 900,000 $ 100,000 $ 1,000,000
Missing Sidewalks & Bikeway Network Gaps 2026
$ 150,000 $ 1,350,000 $ 1,500,000
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / 1/4 Cent & 5th 5th Sales Tax / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2026
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES
¼¢ & 5th 5th SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
6 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
New
C
I
P
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Street Overlays 2026 $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000
Jordan Park Skatepark Expansion $ 90,000 $ 90,000
GREENbike Federal Grant Match 2026; Bike Rack Replacements 2026
$ 100,000 $ 100,000
Livable Streets Program 2026 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,000,000
1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk and Repave Street $ 303,000 $ 303,000
Pedestrian Safety / HAWK at Richmond St. and Zenith Ave.
$ 500,000 $ 500,000
Three Sport Court Replacements $ 630,000 $ 630,000
Playground Replacements $ 385,000 $ 385,000
Central City 600 East Byway Safety Improvements $ 678,724 $ 177,000 $ 855,724
Riverside Basketball Court Renovation $ 79,500 $ 450,500 $ 530,000
PSB EV Charging Expansion $ 1,078,807 $ 1,078,807
Event Infrastructure and Pavilion Replacements for Vibrant, Safe City Parks
$ 2,597,000 $ 2,597,000
Playground Shade $ 500,000 $ 500,000
Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail, and Safety Improvements
$ 680,000 $ 680,000
Concord St to Alzheimer's Jordan River Cleanup
$ 480,000 $ 480,000
Civic Campus and Green Loop Implementation $ 99,500 $ 2,900,500 $ 3,000,000
New Projects Total $ 9,913,236 $ 3,000,000 $ 9,680,000 $ — $ 43,693,236
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / 1/4 Cent & 5th 5th Sales Tax / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2026
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES
¼¢ & 5th 5th SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
7 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Cost Overrun $ 223,171 $ 223,171
Percent for Art $ 167,378 $ 167,378
Total General Fund/Other Fund/Class C Fund/Impact Fee Fund/Surplus Land Fund CIP Projects
$ 25,841,629 $ 3,195,573 $ 9,680,000 $ 175,300 $ 60,192,502
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / 1/4 Cent & 5th 5th Sales Tax / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2026
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES
¼¢ & 5th 5th SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
8 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Air
p
o
r
t
Airport CIP Projects
Dock 3 Door Replacement $ 400,000 $ 400,000
Gateway Skybridge Door Replacement $ 1,517,000 $ 1,517,000
34R Glycol Pump Station Modifications $ 727,000 $ 727,000
Taxiways A&B Modifications (Design)$ 3,006,000 $ 3,006,000
Truck Water Fill Station $ 260,000 $ 260,000
SVRA Control Tower NEPA & Siting Study $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
SVRA Dual Taxiways $ 5,443,000 $ 5,443,000
Economy Lot Pavement Reconstruction (Design)
$ 374,000 $ 374,000
Economy Lot Pavement Rehabilitation $ 1,578,000 $ 1,578,000
Economy Parking Lot EVCS $ 1,062,500 $ 1,062,500
Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure - Phase V (FY26)
$ 1,176,000 $ 1,176,000
PAB Electrical Equipment Upgrade $ 745,000 $ 745,000
Rental Car Overflow Storage Lot Improvements $ 1,199,000 $ 1,199,000
Rental Car QTA Equipment Replacement $ 3,208,000 $ 3,208,000
Rental Car Reallocation $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000
SkyChef Building Demolition $ 2,106,000 $ 2,106,000
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / 1/4 Cent & 5th 5th Sales Tax / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2026
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES
¼¢ & 5th 5th SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
9 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Air
p
o
r
t
(C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
2300 West Realignment $ 2,196,000 $ 2,196,000
NWS Sewer Main Replacement $ 199,000 $ 199,000
Terminal Drive Resurfacing $ 2,606,000 $ 2,606,000
Total Airport CIP Projects $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 30,302,500 $ 30,302,500
Gol
f
Golf CIP Projects
Cart Path Improvements $ 625,000 $ 625,000
Irrigation Improvements - Rose Park $ 5,500,000 $ 5,500,000
Irrigation Improvements - Nibley Park $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000
Maintenance Buildings $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
Maintenance Equipment $ 501,328 $ 501,328
New Construction Projects $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000
On Course Restroom $ 600,000 $ 600,000
Parking Lot Surfacing $ 398,040 $ 398,040
Pump Replacement $ 25,000 $ 25,000
Range Fencing $ 500,000 $ 500,000
Roof Repair $ 150,000 $ 150,000
Tee Box Leveling $ 60,000 $ 60,000
Windows & Doors $ 184,695 $ 184,695
Retaining Wall on #1 and Stairs on #10 $ 70,000 $ 70,000
Total Golf CIP Projects $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 14,114,063 $ 14,114,063
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / 1/4 Cent & 5th 5th Sales Tax / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2026
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES
¼¢ & 5th 5th SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
10 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Pub
l
i
c
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Public Utilities CIP Projects
Water Main Replacements $ 5,950,000 $ 5,950,000
Treatment Plant Improvements $ 63,140,000 $ 63,140,000
Deep Pump Wells $ 500,000 $ 500,000
Meter Change-Out Program $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000
Water Service Connections $ 4,950,000 $ 4,950,000
Storage Reservoirs $ 1,760,000 $ 1,760,000
Culverts, Flumes & Bridges $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Distribution Reservoirs (Tanks)$ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
Maintenance & Repair Shops (Water Utility)$ 450,000 $ 450,000
Treatment Plants $ 50,915,000 $ 50,915,000
Collection Lines $ 21,965,000 $ 21,965,000
Maintenance & Repair Shops (Sewer Utility)$ 350,000 $ 350,000
Storm Drain Lines $ 4,897,000 $ 4,897,000
Riparian Corridor Improvements $ 450,000 $ 450,000
Landscaping $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Storm Water Lift Stations $ 1,837,000 $ 1,837,000
Detention Basins $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Maintenance & Repair Shops (Stormwater Utility)
$ 300,000 $ 300,000
Street Lighting Projects $ 1,440,000 $ 1,440,000
Total Public Utilities CIP Projects $—$—$—$—$—$162,654,000 $ 162,654,000
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / 1/4 Cent & 5th 5th Sales Tax / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2026
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES
¼¢ & 5th 5th SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
11 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
CRA
Community Reinvestment Agency (CRA) CIP Projects
City Creek Daylighting $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Japantown Art $ 37,733 $ 37,733
900 S Freeway Underpass Infrastructure $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Total CRA CIP Projects $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 187,733 $ 187,733
Sus
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Sustainability CIP Projects
No Projects $ —
Total Sustainability CIP Projects $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ —
Total Enterprise and Other Fund CIP $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 207,258,296 $ 207,258,296
GRAND TOTAL $ 25,841,629 $ 3,195,573 $ 9,680,000 $ 207,433,596 $ 267,450,798
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / 1/4 Cent & 5th 5th Sales Tax / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2026
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES
¼¢ & 5th 5th SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
12 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Salt Lake City
Impact Fee Summary
Fiscal Year 2026
PROJECT Parks Impact Fees Streets Impact Fees TOTAL
Impact Fee Projects
Imp
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
Vision Zero Corridors & Safety Improvements Citywide 2026 $ 230,000 $ 230,000
Safe, Open and Clean Park Restrooms $ 456,000 $ 456,000
Parks' Legal Compliance with 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design $ 1,314,000 $ 1,314,000
Sugar House Park - 50/50 Cost Share for One Pavilion Replacement & Critical Infrastructure Upgrades $ 102,000 $ 102,000
Traffic Signal Replacements & Upgrades 2026 $ 400,000 $ 400,000
Transit Capital Program 2026 / Funding Our Future Transit $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Missing Sidewalks & Bikeway Network Gaps 2026 $ 150,000 $ 150,000
Riverside Basketball Court Renovation $ 450,500 $ 450,500
Event Infrastructure and Pavilion Replacements for Vibrant, Safe City Parks $ 2,597,000 $ 2,597,000
Playground Shade $ 500,000 $ 500,000
Concord St to Alzheimer's Jordan River Cleanup $ 480,000 $ 480,000
Civic Campus and Green Loop Implementation $ 2,900,500 $ 2,900,500
Total Impact Fee by Type $ 8,800,000 $ 880,000 $ 9,680,000
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
13 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Salt Lake City Unfunded Projects Fiscal Year 2026
Unf
u
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Constituent
East Central Community Council 1200 East Median Restoration Proposal (300-400 South and 400- 500 South)
1200 East between 300-400 South and 1200 East between 400-500 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84102 $ 954,720 $ 954,720
Constituent Poplar Grove 500 S Traffic Calming 900 West to the Jordan River Trail on 500 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84104 $ 475,000 $ 475,000
Constituent Nevada Street Reconstruction Nevada Street from Redondo North to Garfield, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 $ 932,000 $ 932,000
Constituent Slow Down Liberty Wells South 300 E, 400 E, and 600 E between 1700 S and 2100 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84115 $ 350,000 $ 350,000
Constituent Downtown Farmers Market - Upgraded Electrical Service
Median on 300 South between 300 West and 400 West 350 W 300 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101
$ 240,000 $ 240,000
Constituent Texas Street Replacement 1874 to 1977 S Texas Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 $ 812,500 $ 812,500
Constituent Sweet Streets Bike Network Gap Filling 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 $ 693,000 $ 693,000
Constituent
East Central Community Council Proposal for Pedestrian Safety Measures - Solar Powered Pedestrian Activated Flashers
800 & 1200 East 300 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84102 $ 104,177 $ 104,177
Constituent Continuing Fisher Mansion Stabilization, Restoration & Site Improvements
1206 West 200 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84104 $ 500,000 $ 500,000
Constituent Neighborhood Alley Way Repavement (#4195) / Repave Alley #4195
Alley #4195 between 1100 East and 1200 East, Approx. 875 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84105 $ 324,000 $ 324,000
Constituent Safe Routes to Beacon Heights, Hillside, and Cosgriff
The neighborhood that is generally bounded by Parleys Way (on the south), Nevada Street (on the west), 2500 E (on the east), and Blaine Avenue (on the north), Salt Lake City, UT 84108
$ 403,010 $ 403,010
Constituent Intersection Daylighting with Parking for Bikes and Scooters Citywide $ 429,000 $ 429,000
Constituent First Encampment Park 1704 S 500 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84105 $ 176,635 $ 176,635
Public Services Plaza 349 EV Charging Expansion 349 S 200 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 $ 611,879 $ 611,879
Constituent Glendale Traffic Calming
800 West (between 1300s and 800s), Emery Street W (between California and Indiana Avenue), and Navajo Street (between Illinois and Indiana Avenues), Salt Lake City, UT 84104
$ 485,837 $ 485,837
Constituent 1700 East Asphalt and Fence 2229 to 2283 South 1700 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84106 $ 93,500 $ 93,500
Constituent
Glendale Neighborhood Pedestrian Safety Improvement RRFB revision to HAWK signal at the California Ave/Concord St Intersection
California Ave / Concord St (EB), Salt Lake City, UT, 84104 $ 525,000 $ 525,000
Engineering Alleyway Improvements 2026 Citywide $ 250,000 $ 250,000
Constituent Marmalade Gateway Roundabout 300 North 200 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84103 $ 322,996 $ 322,996
Constituent Repave Alley Area between 3rd & 4th Aves and Virginia and Alta Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84103 $ 163,000 $ 163,000
Organization Name Proposal Title Project Address Location General Funds Total
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
14 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Unf
u
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Constituent Nature Park at Bonneville Bonneville Golf Course, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 $ 2,765,000 $ 2,765,000
Constituent Safe Side Streets North Extension
1000 East between 1700 South and Garfield Avenue, Blaine Avenue at 900 East to 1100 East, and Wilson Avenue at 1000 East to 1100 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84105
$ 388,000 $ 388,000
Constituent Milk Block Bike Spa
416 E 900 S, Slat Lake City, UT 84111 and210 East 400 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84111
$ 117,000 $ 117,000
Constituent Main & Broadway Shade 10 W Broadway, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 $ 230,600 $ 230,600
Constituent Sunnyside Avenue and Amanda Ave Safe Crossing
Sunnyside Avenue (850 South) and Amanda Avenue (1475 East), Salt Lake City, UT 84105 $ 350,000 $ 350,000
Constituent 1200 East Traffic Circles 1200 East 300 & 400 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84102 $ 120,000 $ 120,000
Constituent Wasatch Dr & 2100 South Project 2100 South Wasatch Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84109 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Constituent Federal Heights Safety Upgrades Sigsbee Avenue and Military Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84103 $ 249,865 $ 249,865
Constituent 700 East/Coatsville Ave Community Garden 700 East and Coatsville Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84105 $ 280,000 $ 280,000
Constituent East High Youth Safety Project 860 S 1200 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84102 $ 150,000 $ 150,000
Total Unfunded CIP Projects $ 13,596,719 $ 13,596,719
Organization Name Proposal Title Project Address Location General Funds Total
Salt Lake City CIP Summary Documents
15 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
This page intentionally left blank
Debt Service
Capital Improvement
Program
This page intentionally left blank
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B
2026 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$739,038 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds September 2014 October 1, 2034 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B, were issued in September 2014 for the purpose of acquiring,
constructing, remodeling, and improving of various City buildings, parks, property, and roads.
The Series 2014B bonds were issued with a par amount of $10,935,000. As of June 30, 2025, $6,410,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
on October 1, 2034.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A
2026 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$1,966,520 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds June 2016 October 1, 2028 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A, were issued in June 2016 to refund a portion of the
Series 2009A Bonds. The Series 2009A Bonds were originally issued to finance all or a portion of the acquisition,
construction, improvement and remodel of the new Public Services maintenance facility, a building for use as City
offices and other capital improvements within the City.
Fleet contributes 13.9%, Refuse contributes 13%, and the general fund contributes 73.1% of the debt service on the
Maintenance Facility Program portion of the bonds.
The Series 2016A bonds were issued with a par amount of $21,715,000. As of June 30, 2025, $9,565,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
on October 1, 2028.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A
2026 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$352,975 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds December 2019 April 1, 2027 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A, were issued in December 2019 to refund a portion of
the Series 2007A Bonds. The Series 2007A Bonds were originally issued to fund the TRAX Extension to the
Intermodal Hub and Grant Tower improvements to realign rail lines near downtown.
The Series 2019A bonds were issued with a par amount of $2,620,000. As of June 30, 2025, $665,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature April
1, 2027.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2021
2026 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$—Sales Tax Revenue Bonds December 2021 October 1, 2034 General Fund/Library
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2021, were issued in December 2021 to refund a portion of
the Series 2013B Bonds and a portion of the LBA Series 2013A and 2014A Bonds.
Salt Lake City Debt Service CIP
19 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
The Series 2021 bonds were issued with a par amount of $15,045,000. A portion of the debt service is paid by the
Library for the LBA 2013A and 2014A (Glendale and Marmalade libraries). As of June 30, 2025, $13,065,000 in
principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is die semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
October 1, 2034.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2022A
2026 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$—Sales Tax Revenue Bonds January 2022 October 1, 2032 General Fund/CRA
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2022A, were issued in January 2022 to refund the Series
2012A Bonds. The Series 2012A Bonds were originally issued to fund the construction and improvement of various
City roads, including the replacement of the North Temple Viaduct and improving North Temple Boulevard.
The Series 2022 A bonds were issued with a par amount of $8,900,000. As of June 30, 2025, $7,050,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
The debt service is currently mostly funded by tax increment revenue from the CRA related to the North Temple
Viaduct project. General Fund pays debt service when the tax increment revenue does not fully cover the debt
service and for the North Temple Boulevard portion.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
October 1, 2032.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022B
2026 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$2,003,475 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds November 2022 October 1, 2042 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022C
2026 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$3,090,966 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds November 2022 October 1, 2032 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022B&C, were issued in November 2022 to finance all or a portion of
the cost of acquiring, constructing and improving capital improvement projects, including: City Cemetery irrigation
and road repairs and reconstruction; Pioneer Park; 600 North Corridor; new radio towers for City communication;
an upgrade of the electrical transformer at the Central Plant and emergency back-up generators; Westside railroad
quiet zones; Warm Spring Plunge structure stabilization; Smith's Ballpark; urban wood re-utilization equipment and
storage additions; and Fisher Mansion stabilization; and various other capital improvement program projects.
The Series 2022B bonds were issued with a par amount of $40,015,000. As of June 30, 2025, $40,015,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
October 1, 2042.
The Series 2022C bonds were issued with a par amount of $24,240,000. As of June 30, 2025, $20,295,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
Salt Lake City Debt Service CIP
20 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
October 1, 2032.
ESCO Lease Debt Service
2026 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$96,600 Capital Lease December 2019 March 2026 General Fund
This lease provides energy-efficient equipment to Public Services Facilities Division.
ESCO Steiner Lease Debt Service
2026 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$310,600 Capital Lease January 2013 July 2029 County
This lease was entered into by Public Services to acquire energy efficient-equipment for Steiner. Since the costs of
this facility is shared 50% with the County, the County pays 50% of this lease payment.
ESCO Parks Lease Debt Service
2026 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$517,500 Capital Lease August 2012 March 2026 General Fund
This lease was entered into by Public Services to acquire energy-efficient equipment for City parks.
Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A
2026 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$496,950 LBA Lease Revenue Bonds March 2016 April 15, 2037 General Fund
The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City (LBA of SLC) issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A in March
2016 for the purpose of financing a portion of the construction costs of the Fire Station #14 Project.
The Series 2016A bonds were issued with a par amount of $6,755,000. As of June 30, 2025, $4,650,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 15. Interest is due semi-annually on April 15 and October 15. The bonds mature
on April 15, 2037.
Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A
2026 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$675,575 LBA Lease Revenue Bonds April 2017 April 15, 2038 General Fund
The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City (LBA of SLC) issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A in April
2017 for the purpose of financing a portion of the construction costs of the Fire Station #3 Project.
The Series 2017A bonds were issued with a par amount of $8,115,000. As of June 30, 2025, $6,290,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 15. Interest is due semi-annually on April 15 and October 15. The bonds mature on
April 15, 2038.
Salt Lake City Debt Service CIP
21 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B
2026 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$—Sales Tax Revenue Bonds December 2019 April 1, 2038 CRA
Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013A, were issued in October 2013 for the purpose
of financing a portion of the costs of acquiring, constructing, and equipping a performing arts center and related
improvements. The Series 2013A Bonds were refunded with the Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue
Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B.
The CRA pays the full amount of the debt service for the Series 2019B bonds. However, if the CRA is unable to pay
any of the debt service, the City’s General Fund would be responsible for it.
The total par amount of bonds issued was $58,540,000. As of June 30, 2025, $55,800,000 in principal remains
outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on
April 1, 2038.
General Obligation Bonds, Series 2025
2026 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$2,827,645 Property Tax Revenue Bond TBD TBD General Fund
In November 2022, voters authorized the issuance of up to $85 million in general obligation bonds to fund eight
Parks, Trails, and Open Space projects. The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2023 were sold in August 2023 as the
first issuance of the authorization. The City anticipates issuing $35 million par amount of bonds from such
authorization in 2025.
Salt Lake City Debt Service CIP
22 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SOURCES
Crime Lab Rental Payments
2026 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$600,000 General Fund
Yearly rental payments for Crime Evidence Lab.
City Lease Payments
2026 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$560,000 General Fund
Yearly payments for City Leases.
Facilities Maintenance
2026 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$350,000 General Fund
The Facilities ongoing CIP funding will be used to replace a variety of capital assets. The purpose is to stop problems
early on and prevent larger catastrophic failures of equipment and systems in the City’s building stock.
Urban Trail Maintenance
2026 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$200,000 ¼ Cent Tax
These funds will be used to fund contractors, equipment, and material to maintain urban trails and trail segments
that potentially come online during the fiscal year. The maintenance of these trails is necessary to keep them safe
for all that use them and so they can be used year-round.
Public Lands Maintenance
2026 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$250,000$195,573 General Fund & Funding Our Future
The Parks ongoing CIP funding will be used to replace a variety of capital assets. The purpose is to stop problems
early on and prevent larger failures in the City’s park stock.
Percent for Art
2026 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$167,378 General Fund
To provide enhancements such as decorative pavement, railings, sculptures, and other works of art. (1.5% of CIP)
Cost Overrun
2026 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$223,171 General Fund
Funding set aside to cover unforeseen costs of projects.
Salt Lake City Debt Service CIP
23 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
CIP Memorial House
2026 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$20,000 Other - Rental
A revenue cost center has been established to receive revenue payments from the Utah Heritage Foundation.
Monthly payments are received and are to be re-invested in the facility to maintain the property. Plans for the use
of the funding is to be determined.
Vacant City-owned Property Maintenance and Development
2026 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$700,000 General Fund
Salt Lake City Corporation holds several properties in its real estate inventory that are not used for City functions
but that are either vacant or are leased to third parties. This fund is for the maintenance, security, and improvement
of these properties.
General Fund
Capital Projects
This page intentionally left blank
Project Title:Vision Zero Corridors & Safety Improvements Citywide 2026
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
Traffic fatalities and serious injuries are preventable, not just an inevitable result of traveling in a city. While allcrashes cannot be avoided, proven safety measures can help turn fatal crashes into bumps or fender benders. This is the premise of an entire body of work at the U.S. Department of Transportation and the federal Safe Streets and Roads For All program (SS4A).
The Wasatch Front Regional Council recently completed a regional Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) through the SS4A program, with Salt Lake City as a partner. The CSAP identifies key corridors in Salt Lake City where safety improvements are likely to result in fewer and less severe crashes. Many are state highways, but some are local streets. Three priority corridors identified in the plan are Redwood Road, 900 West, and 800 South. There are many additional corridors around the City that need safety investments.
Since 2020, Salt Lake City has averaged 19 traffic fatalities a year on surface streets (not including interstates), with approximately 45% of these being someone who was walking or bicycling. This program seeks targeted funds for corridors with significant crash histories, and with characteristics that can be made safer with infrastructure changes.
Proposal ID:487402
Department:Transportation
Project Type:Capital
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds $230,000 $230,000
1/4 Cent $2,070,000 $2,070,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses due to this project. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
27 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Safe, Open, and Clean Park Restrooms
Project Address:Citywide, potential locations listed below
Project Description:
This project will fund the replacement of three failing restrooms (if fully funded) of Salt Lake City's 47 existing park restrooms. Detailed design will be based on recommendations from the FY 24/25 CIP-funded citywide restroom study (which is anticipated to be completed in 2026). This is a programmatic request that Public Lands intends to make each year.
Public engagement conducted for the 2019 Needs Assessment showed that the number one improvement requested for Public Lands, over all else, was safe, well-maintained and open restrooms. This project was ranked by the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Advisory Board (PNUT Board) as the highest priority for funding this year.
Currently, some restrooms in the Public Lands' inventory are unsafe, closed, or unusable either year-round or for portions of the year when they are intended to be open. New restrooms will be safer, easier to maintain, less susceptible to vandalism, open more often and more predictably, as well as be more welcoming for park users. The locations proposed for three potential restroom replacements from the following list will be based on asset condition, accessibility and ADA needs, investment equity, efficiencies with other projects to enable cost savings, and major safety concerns based on the Parks Division’s data as well as operations and maintenance staff experience. They may include:• Fairmont Park• Liberty Park (near the new Rotary Play Park)• Riverside Park (near 600 North)• Cottonwood Park• Jordan Park (near the skatepark)• Herman Franks Park (one of the two)
Proposal ID:487689
Department:Public Lands
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $912,000 $1,596,000
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds $456,000 $456,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Decreased due to physical improvements to existing restrooms. If bathrooms are expected to be open year-round, maintenance may increase from the new baseline by approximately 1/3 annually.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
28 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Parks' Legal Compliance with 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
Funding will bring park infrastructure into legal compliance with the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which is a federal civil rights law.
In this first round (of what Public Lands and the Mayor's Office anticipate will be a recurring and programmatic request based on the ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan (SETP), three types of park infrastructure improvements to meet standards would be possible within 10 parks (with at least one park in each Council District), if fully funded: (1) site arrival points; (2) pedestrian access routes; (3) playgrounds and accessible ground surfacing under play areas
If partially funded, it is highly recommended that the City funds all improvements required in one park before moving to the next park (and not partially funding multiple or all 10 parks). If funding is left over, additional replacement or repair of asphalt, concrete, wood, pavers, metal, or other structural materials for bridges, sidewalks, parking lots, trails, roads, and pavers within parks would ensure smooth, ADA-compliant surfaces for all.
Prioritization and selection of the 10 parks included in this first round's application were based on project readiness, public usage and engagement (see Appendix F, p. 28 of the SETP), severity of the issue, safety, and/or other elements of the SETP:Riverside Park, Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center fields and playground, Jordan Park, 11th Ave Park, Lindsey Gardens Park, Victory Park, Ballpark Playground, Wasatch Hollow Park, Parley’s Way Park, Parley’s Historic Nature Park.
Failure to remove barriers excludes children and adults with disabilities from fully participating in park activities, further limiting their access to health and social benefits.
Proposal ID:487820
Department:Public Lands
Project Type:Capital
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $1,000,000 $1,370,929
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds $1,314,000 $1,314,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Some improvements may minimally decrease maintenance needs, while some specific improvements (such as new poured-in-place play surfacing underneath playgrounds) will increase maintenance needs.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
29 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Street Reconstruction 2026
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
This annual program funds the vital reconstruction of deteriorated City streets, including street pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage improvements as necessary, and appropriate complete streets bicycle, pedestrian and transit access improvements. The program meets all federal Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requirements, which are always triggered with a complete reconstruction.
Proposal ID:487398
Department:Engineering
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds $2,790,676 $2,790,676
Impact Fee Funds
FOF Streets $1,000,000 $1,000,000
5th 5th Tax $600,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Decreased
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
30 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:700 North (2200 West to Redwood Road)
Project Address:700 North Street from Redwood Road to 2200 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Project Description:
700 North is a vital transportation west side connection; from housing developments on Redwood to I-215 to industrial and airport general aviation. This project will not only repave the deteriorated street surface, but add pedestrian and transit enhancements and safety features, transforming the corridor for all users.The 700 North Corridor Transformation project was selected by the Wasatch Front Regional Council for construction funding in 2027. This CIP request will provide part of the local match ($1,680,600 required) in order to obtain $3,000,000 Federal funding programmed for this project.
Proposal ID:487559
Department:Engineering
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds $1,680,600 $1,680,600
Impact Fee Funds
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
No budget impact
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
31 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Public Way Concrete
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
This annual program addresses deteriorated or defective concrete sidewalks, accessibility ramps, curb and gutter, retaining walls, etc. in the public way through saw-cutting, slab jacking, or removal and replacement. Funding for this vital program in the last 5 years has averaged 63%. Providing a fully accessible public right-of-way is an unfunded federal mandate through the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Proposal ID:487833
Department:Engineering
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds $750,000 $750,000
Impact Fee Funds
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
No budget impact
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
32 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Liberty Lake Dredging and Aeration System Replacement
Project Address:Liberty Park, 589 E 1300 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Project Description:
The aeration system at Liberty Lake in Liberty Park is in disrepair and is often non-functional. As a result, the water quality may become quite poor, and the lake is intermittently closed for the safety and well-being of all park visitors. The more-stagnant-than-desired water and shallow depth also increases water temperature, increasing the likelihood, frequency, and intensity of algal blooms, which are hazardous and harmful to park users, dogs, and wildlife within the area.
Repair of the aeration system, coupled with a complete dredging of the sediment at the bottom of Liberty Lake, will improve water quality of the lake, water quality of Red Butte Creek downstream of Liberty Park (and in turn the Jordan River), and improve user experience and the health of flora, fauna, and park visitors. It will also significantly reduce regular maintenance costs and obligations associated with regular failures and closures, and will reinvigorate recreational uses of the Lake, also contributing to economic success of the Liberty Park concessionaire and improving visitor experience. Replacement of the aeration system also includes upgrade of power infrastructure required for the new system.
If replacement is delayed, the lake will likely continue to see unexpected closures, the maintenance burden will be high (often an all-hands-on-deck operation when the system fails), and water quality and user experience in and near Liberty Park may continue to suffer until dredging and system replacement has been completed.
Proposal ID:487438
Department:Public Lands
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
FOF Other $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Decreased—anticipated decrease of $50,000 annually if fully funded.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
33 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:20 Acres of Irrigation System Replacements & Supportive Waterwise Landscaping
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
This climate-forward project to replace up to 20 acres of aged irrigation systems will help shape a water and resource-conscious future for many of our parks and public lands. It has two essential parts: improve irrigation efficiency, and replace some turf areas with low-water, regionally-appropriate plantings. This is a programmatic request that Public Lands intends to make each year.
The environmental, infrastructure, and public lands benefits of these changes are far-reaching.
Improve irrigation efficiency: Many of our parks' and public lands' irrigation systems are 50-60 years old. They use more water and cost more to maintain than newer systems. Improved or completely new irrigation systems can help Salt Lake City build more resilient, shady, and enjoyable spaces in preparation for a hotter, drier future. New irrigation systems will use less water, require less maintenance, break less often, keep existing and future trees healthier, and last another 30+ years. During installation, projects may add trees and convert some turf landscaping to more waterwise options. These two strategies can significantly reduce water use and increase resiliency.
Where practicable, replace turf with low-water, regionally appropriate plantings: Updating irrigation systems is also an opportunity to identify and make changes to the different kinds of areas and plant cover that these systems irrigate in our parks and public lands. Low use and passive areas could be converted into regionally appropriate, waterwise plants requiring less maintenance. In some locations, there is still a need for conventional turf that can withstand heavy use, such as playfields. These areas should be irrigated separately for efficient use of water.
Proposed locations include passive turf areas that are currently not actively programmed in parks, natural areas, medians and islands. Please see location map for all locations.
Proposal ID:487828
Department:Public Lands
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $1,007,515 $1,007,515
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
FOF Other $10,000 $10,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Decreased; Exact expenses dependent on acres impacted
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
34 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Bridge Preservation Program
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
Salt Lake City is responsible for 55 bridges. Twenty-three of those are vehicle bridges, most crossing either the Jordan River or the Surplus Canal. UDOT inspects these vehicle bridges every two years and provides the city with a basic condition report. The city is responsible for performing appropriate maintenance activities based on statements in the UDOT report. City Engineering has prepared an ongoing bridge maintenance strategy with the objective of extending the functional life of these structures, and extending the time between major repairs. The requested funds will be used to address needed repairs and routine maintenance.
Proposal ID:487543
Department:Engineering
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
1/4 Cent $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Decreased
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
35 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Sugar House Park - 50/50 Cost Share for One Pavilion Replacement & Critical Infrastructure Upgrades
Project Address:1330 E 2100 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Project Description:
This project will fund Salt Lake City’s contractual obligation to match (with Salt Lake County) 50% of the capital costs for the following urgent improvements (in priority order) at Sugar House Park, per our 1957 contractual agreement:
1. Replacement of the Sugar Beet Pavilion (#4 of 7) and the remainder of Salt Lake City's portion of the total required SLC Dept of Public Utilities' stormwater impact fee (urgent for the construction of pavilions #2 and #3, already funded)2. Hidden Grove Ped Bridge Railing Replacement and Sidewalk Upgrades3. Culinary Waterline Study to determine replacement trajectory4. WeatherTRAK Irrigation System Upgrade to reduce water usage and conserve resources5. Parking Lot Resurfacing to improve vehicle access to 6 of the 7 pavilions6. Addition of playground shade structures near the Parley's Creek Pavilion playground (impact fee eligible)7. Spoke road resurfacing (north of the pond) to improve safety and predictability of the road and intersection
The completion of these projects is critical for the access, safety, inclusion, and enjoyment of Sugar House Park patrons and will deliver community benefits, support sustainability efforts, and continue Salt Lake City's and Salt Lake County's decades-long collaborative funding and management agreement.
In 1957, with the incorporation of Sugar House Park, Salt Lake City, and Salt Lake County made a contractual agreement to jointly own the park property and appropriate funds for facilities. The Sugar House Park Authority depends on these appropriations from the City and County to carry out the park's purpose as a very popular Regional Park. Salt Lake City's 50% investment in these capital projects delivers 100% benefits for Salt Lakers.
Proposal ID:487872
Department:Public Lands
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $1,005,117 $1,005,117
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds $102,000 $102,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Maintenance at the park is funded by Salt Lake County. It will likely decrease with replacement of the pavilion, bridge infrastructure, irrigation and parking lot, but the installation of shade structures will increase the County’s maintenance expenses.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
36 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Facilities Replacement and Renewal
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
The Facility Renewal and Deferred Asset Management Initiative for Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) is a targeted effort aligned with the 10-year plan. Our goal is to strategically manage the existing backlog of deferred assets by categorizing and prioritizing them based on building and component criticality. This involves dividing the current backlog into three equal parts, enabling us to address an approximately consistent number of assets per year. Additionally, we aim to proactively tackle 50% of incoming deferred assets to prevent further accumulation. This focused approach ensures efficient resource allocation and sets the foundation for sustained facility enhancement over the coming years.
Proposal ID:487881
Department:Public Services
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $1,980,868 $1,980,868
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Decrease future maintenance and reduce operational expenses by installing more efficient units. Will also reduce maintenance calls/work orders.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
37 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Traffic Signal Replacements & Upgrades 2026
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
Salt Lake City's Traffic Signal Replacement & Upgrade Program has been inadequately funded for years. Signalsthroughout the city are in failing condition, requiring patchwork repairs to electronics and wiring. Failing traffic signals are less obvious than potholes -- unless the signal pole rusts through and the signal falls over, which can happen.
More frequently when a traffic signal fails, it no longer accurately detects motor vehicle and bicycle traffic. The signal is then set on a simple timer without being able to sense whether traffic is waiting. This results in additional traffic delays, congestion, and may contribute to road rage, red-light running, and crashes. Failing signals require frequent staff attention to physical repairs and/or resetting the signal's computers.
For the past several years, the traffic signal program has sought to fund 6 signal replacements per year and 5upgrades. This level of funding has been needed each year for 10 years. Annual funding has been for only 0-2 signals, and the traffic signal system continues to deteriorate rapidly.
This financially constrained request of $4 million seeks to fund full replacement of 6 ranked signals in failing condition with structural and/or equipment deficiencies, plus upgrades to detection and/or communications equipment. Based on the current costs of signals, this work may cost closer to $5 million and need to seek additional funds in FY27.
Proposal ID:487401
Department:Transportation
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds $3,600,000 $3,600,000
Impact Fee Funds $400,000 $400,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
This project is expected to decrease the expenses of the Streets Division in maintaining aging signals.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
38 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Transit Capital Program 2026 / Funding Our Future Transit
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
The Funding our Future Transit Capital Program leverages outside funds from UTA to install bus shelters, benches, trash cans, and partner on the development of mobility hubs and accessible first/last mile connections to transit. After Salt Lake City constructs a concrete bus stop pad, UTA pays for and installs the stop amenities and maintains them for the life of the assets.
This program implements two of the key recommendations of the Transit Master Plan, seeking to make all transit stops accessible, safe, and comfortable for people of all ages and abilities. This is also required by federal law, particularly when streets are repaved or reconstructed.
Also as outlined in the Transit Master Plan, a highly visible "frequent service" brand and enhanced amenities has been developed and is ready for deployment at selected bus stops throughout the city. These investments in branding and enhanced stations can help achieve the Transit Master Plan goal of providing a safe and comfortable transit access and waiting experience. Some of the new shelters are now equipped with lighting, which will make passengers who are waiting more visible to operators, as well as to increase safety and security while they are waiting.
Proposal ID:487404
Department:Transportation
Project Type:Capital
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds $100,000 $100,000
FOF Transit $900,000 $900,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses due to these projects. These otheragencies will be included in the planning and design process. Most bus stop maintenance is borne by UTA.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
39 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Missing Sidewalks & Bikeway Network Gaps 2026
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
This program will implement one of five key moves identified in Connect SLC, the Citywide Transportation Plan(adopted by the City Council in 2024) -- to retrofit existing streets with walking and bicycling facilities as well as adding strategically selected segments of trails, to create a complete network. Recent opportunistic projects, including those in the 2018 streets bond, have made great progress. From the perspective of someone walking or bicycling, however, these new projects are not connected seamlessly to a network. People are already using these roadways without complete infrastructure – raising safety concerns. If these streets’ overall condition were graded for "completeness" instead of potholes, they would be "serious" to "failing." This annual program will fill these gaps.
Short segments of sidewalks are missing all over the city -- the equivalent of sidewalk OCI 0. This year's program is likely, for example, to address a missing sidewalk near a school on L Street in the Avenues and one or more missing sidewalks in the Glendale Neighborhood identified in a community-council created active transportation plan.
Existing roadways without bike infrastructure, despite having had a Complete Street policy for over 17 years, will be selected based on gaps in the network. Gaps will be addressed using inexpensive materials like paint, bollards, and/or separation provided by parked vehicles, similar to projects implemented in the last couple years on 200 East and 300 East. An emphasis will be placed on bike lanes with physical separation, where possible.
Proposal ID:486574
Department:Transportation
Project Type:Capital
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds $150,000 $150,000
¼ Cent $1,350,000 $1,350,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses due to these projects. These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
40 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
1
Project Title:Street Overlays 2026
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
This annual program funds the overlay of City streets that have not yet fallen to the level of deterioration where full reconstruction is required. Overlays include mill and overlay of street pavement, spot curb and gutter and sidewalk replacement, drainage improvements as necessary, and appropriate complete streets bicycle and pedestrian access improvements. Overlays are of particular interest from a cost savings perspective, because streets of this condition are in their last possible years before a considerably more expensive, full reconstruction will become inevitable. This is analogous to an old house that needs its wooden siding replaced. A few more years of rot, and you will need to replace all the framing too. A lot more expensive. The program incorporates federal Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requirements, such as sidewalk curb ramps and bus stop access, which are triggered with an overlay project.
Proposal ID:487400
Department:Engineering
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
1/4 Cent $3,500,000 $3,500,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Decreased
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
41 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Jordan Park Skatepark Expansion
Project Address:1030 S 900 W Salt Lake City, UT 84104
Project Description:
This application seeks funding to complete a study and detailed design to expand the Jordan Park Skatepark. The Glendale Neighborhood Council has already developed preliminary recommendations that will be incorporated into a more detailed design effort.
Nestled within the Glendale neighborhood of Salt Lake City lies a cultural cornerstone beloved by locals and renowned among skateboarders nationwide - Jordan Skatepark, affectionately known by users as "9th and 9th". For over 20 years, this iconic space has been a sanctuary for skaters, a hub for community building, and a vital thread in the fabric of Glendale. As Jordan Skatepark approaches its third decade of existence (typical life is approximately 25-35 years), the realities of time and use have begun to reveal cracks in its foundation. With a surge in popularity over the years, the park finds itself bursting at the seams, struggling to accommodate the ever-growing groups of skaters who flock to it.
Proposal ID:483234
Department:Public Lands
Project Type:Capital
Category: New - Constituent
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
FOF Other $90,000 $90,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
No budget impact; planning and design only.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
42 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:GREENbike Federal Grant Match 2026; Bike Rack Replacements 2026
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
Salt Lake City's bike share system, GREENbike, has received nearly $860,000 in federal funds to replace old, rusting, falling-apart stations and bikes. GREENbike's oldest equipment is 12+ years old, having been exposed to weather and the public 24/7/365. Nearly half of the 50 Salt Lake stations are failing, with parts no longer available for repairs, after hundreds of thousands of uses with riders mashing buttons on stations and yanking or slamming bikes into docks. Stations may unexpectedly fail which can lead to personal safety concerns for people walking from a further station than anticipated. While GREENbike has been cobbling together stations out of old parts, they need to be replaced. The city’s $60,000 in CIP funding will be focused on bike stations, as the bikes are equipment and not eligible for CIP.
Bike racks and bike corrals on the public way are similar, city-owned assets that need capital replacement. Racks have been hit by cars, mangled, or simply rusted out. While this may seem minor, in at least one instance a rusted bike rack fell over, injuring a child and leading to a payout by the city. Bike racks are placed almost entirely by adjacent business owners’ requests; this program supports SLC’s small businesses.
Most of the city’s bike corrals, installed April to October to replace one car parking space with a bike rack for 10bicycles are damaged, may be unsafe to use, and do not make a good impression. This request includes $20,000 for racks and $20,000 for corrals. The priority is capital replacement. If funds allow, some new bike racks and corrals may be installed.
Proposal ID:487397
Department:Transportation
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
1/4 Cent Tax $100,000 $100,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Utah BikeShare, a non-profit, is responsible for Maintenance and Operations of GREENbike stations, and expectsto experience lower costs. Bike rack capital replacements have no budget impact.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
43 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Livable Streets Program 2026
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
This citywide program aims to address the most common resident complaint to Transportation staff - speedingvehicles. It uses a data-driven & equitable prioritization process for the implementation of traffic calming improvements in the areas most in need.
The Livable Streets Program addresses local, neighborhood streets and installs infrastructure designed to reinforce the posted 20 mile per hour speed limit. These treatments are selected with input from the local residents and businesses, and may include speed humps, mini-roundabouts, pedestrian bulb-outs, crosswalks, and other similar infrastructure.
This year's funding request is for three zones. This program is scalable; additional funding would allow Transportation to move through the 113 total zones more quickly. At the current rate of 3-4 zones per year, the program will take around 25-30 years to address all the areas of the city.
Proposal ID:487396
Department:Transportation
Project Type:Capital
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Impact Fee Funds
1/4 Cent $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses due to these projects. These otheragencies will be included in the planning and design process.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
44 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk and Repave Street
Project Address:1200 E Zenith Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Project Description:
Install curb and gutter on east side of road, and curb, gutter, and sidewalk on west side of road on 1200 East between Zenith Ave. and Crandall Ave and repave 1200 E between Crandall Ave and Zenith Ave.
Proposal ID:483282
Department:Engineering
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal - Constituent
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
1/4 Cent $303,000.00 $303,000.00
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Increased
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
45 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Pedestrian Safety / HAWK at Richmond St. and Zenith Ave.
Project Address:1258 E Zenith Ave, Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Project Description:
This project, a constituent request, will install a HAWK signal at Zenith Avenue’s crossing of Richmond Street, a 5-lane street. The Transportation Division has confirmed that a HAWK is the appropriate treatment for this location. The constituent reports that the current pedestrian signs, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) are insufficient for a safe community experience of this crossing:
“My family walks across Richmond daily to get to the daycare on another corner. Many people, including kids,families, and elderly, walk across Richmond to get to daycare, parks, bus stops, the grocery store, and school -Richmond runs through the Nibley Park School District and the 213 bus, which services Highland High School,Westminster University, and the U, has north- and south-bound stops at Richmond and Zenith. Pedestrian traffic is only likely to increase as more apartment buildings and businesses are opened in the growing Brickyard area…. Drivers either don't notice or choose to disregard [the RRFBs]. My family and I often stand at the Zenith corner so long, waiting for all 5 lanes to stop, that we have to hit the pedestrian crosswalk button multiple times.”
“In 3 years, I've witnessed at least 5 car accidents, including a car rear-ending a stopped bus and a car rear ending another car that stopped for a pedestrian using the crosswalk. Our backyard fence along Richmond was destroyed because a car went through it. Countless drivers have almost hit other cars or pedestrians, including parents with strollers and kids. Neighbors who signed my CIP petition used the words "scary", "nightmare", and "dangerous" to describe crossing Richmond.”
Proposal ID:483184
Department:Transportation
Project Type:Capital
Category: New - Constituent
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
1/4 Cent $500,000 $500,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses due to this project. These otheragencies will be included in the planning and design process.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
46 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Three Sport Court Replacements
Project Address:Citywide, see potential locations below
Project Description:
This project proposes, but is not limited to, replacing or significantly rehabbing (depending on condition) two to three of Salt Lake City's approximately 110 concrete or asphalt sport courts used for tennis, pickleball, basketball, and other activities. This is a programmatic request that Public Lands intends to make each year.
This project will enhance recreational opportunities, prioritize community needs, and revitalize aging and/or failing facilities to create safe and engaging spaces for residents.
Possible court locations include: - Westpointe Park Basketball Court: The current basketball court is undersized for the community it serves and lacks proper play surfacing. The concrete and basketball standards are aging and in need of replacement. Expanding and updating the court will better meet community needs by providing modern, high-quality amenities to an underserved population. Adding an artistic element to the court design could further enhance the sense of community and support local identity. - Riverside Park Tennis Courts: These asphalt courts are showing significant wear, including cracks and peeling surfacing, which hinder playability. Replacing these courts with concrete surfaces and/or possibly converting some to pickleball courts (depending on community feedback) would improve accessibility, ensure safety, and offer a more enjoyable recreational environment for the community. - Liberty Park Volleyball Court: The volleyball court’s surface at Liberty Park is deteriorating. As part of a potential public/private partnership, this court may be converted into use for street soccer, or futsal. To support this transition, resurfacing and fencing the court is recommended to ensure a safe play area without disturbing surrounding uses.
If higher priority locations are not possible, alternate locations might include: Sunnyside Park’s basketball court, Warm Springs Park’s tennis courts, Madsen Park’s basketball court, and Victory Park/10th East Senior Center’s tennis courts.
Proposal ID:487355
Department:Public Lands
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $630,000 $630,000
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Decreased by approximately $5,000 annually if fully funded. Each court will decrease maintenance costs by approximately $1,700 annually.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
47 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Playground Replacements
Project Address:Citywide, see potential locations in description
Project Description:
This project will fund replacement of and upgrades to upgraded playground equipment and surfacing that are beyond their safe and serviceable life at up to four parks.
Playgrounds typically last 20-25 years. Salt Lake City has 79 playgrounds. Replacing four per year will ensure that children are safer, more engaged, and more consistently able to access play features near their homes and schools, and will allow Public Lands to not only maintain our asset replacement schedule but also reduce possible closures or expenses stopgaps. This is a programmatic request that Public Lands intends to make each year.
This programmatic, annual funding request includes playground, surfacing, minor design, permitting, and community engagement costs. If fully funded, up to four of the following playgrounds (in alphabetical order) will be selected based on asset condition, accessibility/ADA needs, efficiencies with other projects, and investment equity: 6th East Mini Park, 11th Avenue Park, Davis Park, Lindsey Gardens Park, Parley's Way Park, Pugsley Ouray Park, Riverside Park, Victory Park.
Proposal ID:487835
Department:Public Lands
Project Type:Capital
Category: Renewal
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $385,000 $385,000
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Decreased, depending on size and type of playground which will be determined during design
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
48 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Central City 600 East Byway Safety Improvements
Project Address:450 South 600 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84102
Project Description:
This project, a constituent request, will make safety improvements to 600 East between 900 South at Liberty Park to the connection to N Street at South Temple. This segment of 600 East is already a neighborhood byway.
600 East is one of Salt Lake City's first neighborhood byways; however, this section has seen few safety upgradesapart from improved crossings at 800 South and 900 South. In some parts of the route, there are shared bike lane markings with no traffic calming to force slow speeds (South Temple to 200 South and 600 South to 900 South). Between 200 South and 600 South, there are standard painted bike lanes with no traffic calming. This area has higher traffic volumes that make it more stressful to ride a bike or walk across the street and is the area with the most destinations.
This project would install traffic calming throughout the route, improve walking and biking crossings, and improve the bike lanes at key locations. 600 East is a very important active transportation connection for the Central City community. It provides direct access to 5 grocery stores, a school, multiple retail and dining clusters, Liberty Park, lots of housing and completes a connection from the Lower Avenues through Central City to Liberty Wells.
This project is supported by the Salt Lake City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, would contribute to SLC's goal of zero deaths and severe injuries by 2035 and reduce emissions for SLC's sustainability goals.
Proposal ID:483165
Department:Transportation
Project Type:Capital
Category: New - Constituent
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds $678,724 $678,724
Impact Fee Funds
¼ Cent $177,000 $177,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses due to this project. These otheragencies will be included in the planning and design process.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
49 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Riverside Basketball Court Renovation
Project Address:Riverside Park, 1490 W 600 N Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Project Description:
The Riverside Basketball Court is a community hub that promotes physical activity and social interaction. However, the current condition of the court is deteriorated, and outdated, affecting its usability and safety.
The objectives of this request are to enhance the facility by updating the aesthetics of the basketball court and adding amenities to make it more user friendly. This would improve the overall playing experience for community members as well as foster a better sense of community through recreational activities. Renovating the Riverside Basketball Court can significantly enhance the community's recreational facilities, promote healthy lifestyles, and foster social connections.
The scope of work includes:– Court Construction: Install a durable, post-tension concrete, full court NBA regulation size, with a weather resistant surface. Mark lines for both full and half court play. Customize with an original art mural, as feasible in coordination with the Arts Council.– Hoops: Install at least two new, adjustable basketball hoops to accommodate players of all ages and skill levels.– Additional Amenities: Install fencing, benches, and trash cans to enhance the user and spectator experience.
Proposal ID:482728
Department:Public Lands
Project Type:Capital
Category: New - Constituent
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $79,500 $79,500
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds $450,500 $450,500
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Maintenance costs will increase slightly with a larger court, new surfacing, and more amenities and supportive infrastructure.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
50 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:PSB EV Charging Expansion
Project Address:475 S 300 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Project Description:
We are seeking funding for a vital project aimed at upgrading the charging infrastructure at the Salt Lake City Public Safety Building, a central facility for the city's police and fire departments, emergency operations center, and combined dispatch unit. The project involves the installation of (20) new Level 2 charger ports, along with back feeding (10) pre-existing ports within the existing two-floor garage, catering to a fleet of (50) public services, police, and fire vehicles. Following the recommendations from Kimley-Horn & Sawatch, the proposed funding will support the first two phases, which include the installation of a new utility transformer on the east end of the property to facilitate the required electrical service for efficient EV charging. This investment aligns with our commitment to sustainable transportation as outlined in the City's 2020 Electrified Transportation Joint Resolution and positions our city at the forefront of accommodating the evolving needs of our expanding EV fleet.
Most of the costs for the project will be for the additional transformer and associated infrastructure. It should be noted that Sustainability recently accepted a gift that provides the City access to 100 EV chargers at no cost, besides installation. If fully funded, Sustainability may contribute some of the EV chargers for this project rather than purchasing the chargers. The minimal savings will likely be consumed with recent market changes. Any surplus funds will be used to enhance the east surface parking lot with the security and access upgrades needed.
Proposal ID:487963
Department:Public Services
Project Type:Capital
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $1,078,807
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
The anticipated cost for the Facilities Division to maintain is $0-1,200 per station per year or maintenance could be contracted out for a flat rate of a few hundred dollars per station per year.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
51 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Event Infrastructure and Pavilion Replacements for Vibrant, Safe City Parks
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
This project will transform several public parks into vibrant hubs for community gatherings and public events by investing in essential event and gathering infrastructure. If fully funded, the project will replace failing pavilions in select parks ideal for hosting small family and community events and add amenities for all events, such as permanent power distribution boxes, improved lighting, restrooms, and durable areas to accommodate public and private organizers’ stages, vehicles, portable restrooms, or other structures to make our parks more friendly, accommodating, and accommodating for many kinds of events.
This is a potential programmatic request that Public Lands intends to make each year.
These upgrades will support a variety of activities, from cultural festivals and concerts to volunteer projects and neighborhood celebrations, fostering community connection and enriching public spaces. The benefits of these upgrades are six-fold:(1) Reduce the current maintenance impacts of concentrating every City and special event within the same few parks(2) Reduce event costs for organizers and potential organizers(3) Activate more of our parks, especially those that are otherwise ready to be supportive of more events (open space, parking, etc.) in Council districts that do not traditionally host many events(4) Ensure that our park supply can meet event demand so that there can be more events programmed in our parks every year(5) Minimize environmental impacts of required and mobile event infrastructure(6) Increase accessibility for organizers and participants alike.
This initiative aligns with Public Lands’ vision of creating safe, inclusive, and engaging public spaces that strengthen community bonds and enhance quality of life for residents and visitors.
Proposal ID:487973
Department:Public Lands
Project Type:Capital
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds $2,597,000 $2,597,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Net maintenance is anticipated to decrease if pavilion replacement is included. If only new City and special event infrastructure is included, maintenance needs and expenses are expected to increase.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
52 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Playground Shade
Project Address:Citywide, see potential locations below
Project Description:
Funding will allow for the installation of shade cloths/sails over up to five existing playgrounds, listed below. In the summer, playground equipment is often too hot to use by 10 am, particularly in these full-sun playgrounds. By providing shade to the existing playgrounds, the community will enjoy increased use of play equipment for the full day in the summer, and heat-related hazards will be reduced. Shade cloths/sails will also help with the prevention of skin cancer.
1. Meadows Park2. 17th South River Park3. 11th Avenue Park (playground replacement included in the Public Lands Department's ADA CIP application for FY 25/26)4. Sherwood Park5. Modesto Park (playground upgrades or replacement included in the upcoming Parks GO Bond and CIP-funded improvement projects along the Jordan River corridor)6. Richmond Park (playground upgrades or replacement included in the upcoming Parks GO Bond and CIP-funded improvement project)7. Herman Franks Park
Proposal ID:481191
Department:Public Lands
Project Type:Capital
Category: New - Constituent
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds $500,000 $500,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Increased—each shade installation is anticipated to increase annual playground maintenance costs by $3,000 per playground.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
53 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail, and Safety Improvements
Project Address:1700 North to 2100 North Rose Park Lane, Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Project Description:
This project would replace and improve the quality of the Rose Park Lane trail, as well as add irrigation, plantings and trees for beautification. This project would address current maintenance challenges, would be an improvement near the Jordan River Parkway Trail, and would improve safety for the families that use this road for biking, walking, and running. The addition of trees along with these improvements would increase shade, reduce air pollution, reduce high summer heat, minimize traffic noise from I-215, and make the trail ADA-compliant. The current condition of the trail makes it unusable and/or inaccessible for most.
The entire stretch of Rose Park Lane is highly visible, and in need of beautification. The park strips of Rose Park Lane were plumbed for irrigated years ago at the same time as the Public Utilities basin at 1721 North Morton Dr (Parcel 08221510200000), but the irrigation was never extended the full length of Rose Park Lane and has not worked properly. Beautification of the trail would be visible from I-215, by visitors of the Regional Athletic Complex, and anyone entering Salt Lake City from the 2100 North exist. The addition of plantings and the replacement of the trail will create a safer and more beautiful Rose Park Lane.
Proposal ID:481191
Department:Public Lands
Project Type:Capital
Category: New - Constituent
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $680,000
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Increased by approximately $6,000 annually
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
54 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Concord St to Alzheimer's Jordan River Cleanup
Project Address:
This project would include multiple city owned parcels: 229 S Concord St. Salt Lake City, UT 84104 (Parcel # 15021550010000)231 S Concord St. Salt Lake City, UT 84104 (Parcel # 15021550020000)228 South 1200 W Salt Lake City, UT 84104 (Parcel # 15021560020000)
Project Description:
This area of the river corridor is made up of city-owned properties at the end of Concord St. and Pierpont Ave that provide possible access to the river from Concord Street, as well as the properties on the east side of the river. The benefits of this project may include easier access to and near the Jordan River, improved safety and care of the City’s property, and more positive activity along the river in line with the recommendations, vision, and goals of the Emerald Ribbon Action Plan.
If fully funded, the scope of the request will:1) Create a new public nature space on the west side of Alzheimer's Park/Jordan River2) Add improvements to the walkway on 300 S to increase comfort and walkability to/from the Jordan River Trail for people west of the river3) Depending on Army Corps and County Flood Control feedback, conduct a feasibility study for a bridge connecting the east and west sides of the river south of the I-80 bridge over the river
Proposal ID:481401
Department:Public Lands
Project Type:Capital
Category: New - Constituent
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds $480,000 $480,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Increased annual maintenance by approximately $6,000.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
55 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Civic Campus and Green Loop Implementation
Project Address:
Salt Lake City right-of-way at 200 East from approximately 350 South to 550 South(A primary focus is the Civic Block of 200 East between Washington Square and Library Square. Intersections north and south of the block will be included, as will some length of the block to the north and south)
Project Description:
Where the Civic Campus and Green Loop intersect, there is a valuable opportunity to create an iconic and vibrant event space in the heart of downtown. This request of $3,000,000 represents approximately 20% of the projected project construction cost and serves as seed money for alternative funding sources. The project that will be constructed is being designed with FY 24/25 CIP funding.
The Green Loop project reimagines part of the City's underutilized public rights-of-way as functional and recreational green space with stormwater management, surface flood control, pollinator habitat, and human well-being incorporated into the public realm right-of-way.
Transformation of the public right-of-way requires construction of both above-ground improvements (sidewalks, paths, bikeways, plazas, roadway, forest, plantings, park features, and rain gardens) and below-ground infrastructure (public and private utilities). Project costs include design and construction of above-ground green space, roadway reconstruction, traffic signals, and some utility (public and private) relocation on 200 East from approximately 350 South to 550 South.
The intent of this application is to allocate funding to bring strategic segments of the Green Loop to construction as early as 2026, particularly where there are timely opportunities to leverage nearby active projects, grant funds, and/or philanthropy.
Since 2019, Salt Lake City's multi-departmental Green Loop project team, comprised of staff from Community and Neighborhoods, the Mayor's Office, Public Lands, Public Services, and Public Utilities has been collaborating to bring this complex project to reality. In 2024, concept design for 200 East was completed. Further design for the Civic Block will integrate the Green Loop with Library Square visioning.
Proposal ID:486210
Department:Public Lands
Project Type:Capital
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $99,500
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds $2,760,500 $2,900,500
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Increased; Maintenance and operational costs and needs will be developed and considered during the design process and the generation of the “Project Development and Public Space Management Guidelines”, on which work was authorized to begin by the City Council on January 21, 2025.
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
56 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Cost Overrun
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
Funding set aside to cover unforeseen costs of projects.
Proposal ID:NA
Department:
Project Type:Overrun
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $223,171
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
None
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
57 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Percent for Art
Project Address:Citywide
Project Description:
Funding set aside to provide art at City developed projects.
Proposal ID:NA
Department:
Project Type:Art
Category: New
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund $167,378
Class C Funds
Impact Fee Funds
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
None
Salt Lake City General Fund Capital Projects
58 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Enterprise Fund
Capital Projects
This page intentionally left blank
The Department of Airports
The Department of Airports is an enterprise fund of Salt Lake City Corporation and does not receive any
general fund revenues to support the operation of the City’s system of airports. The Department of
Airports (the Airport) has 674 employee budgeted positions and is responsible for managing, developing,
and promoting airports that provide quality transportation facilities and services, and a convenient travel
experience.
The Fiscal Year 2026 budget continues to see modest growth in enplanements, revenues, as well as
expenditures. The Salt Lake City International Airport (SLCIA) continues to benefit from the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law (BIL) grants awarded for FY2025. The BIL grants, along with the Airport Improvement
Program (AIP) grants, and the Airport Terminal Program (ATP) grants, will continue to provide much
needed and critical funding for airport capital infrastructure projects that are moving from design into
actual construction. The Airport will be bringing on ten gates located on Concourse B in October 2025.
These openings bring additional staffing and maintenance staff requirements while seeing the complete
elimination of the remaining hardstand operations.
The developed FY26 budget continues to provide positive financial benefits with increased passengers
and revenues that help offset increased operating expenses. The Airport will continue to fund important
capital projects. These projects include Phase III and Phase IV of construction of gates on Concourse B. In
addition, critical projects found in the airfield, landside, and auxiliary airports will continue to be funded
to ensure that all Airport’s owned facilities keep up with critical infrastructure to support the growth we
are currently experiencing as well as the growth we are projecting into future years.
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
61 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Dock 3 Door Replacement
Project Description:
This project will replace the existing 22 x 14 foot, 8,000 lb. overhead coil door at Dock 3 for the trash and recycling bins, with a double door system similar to what is at Dock 1. It would be preferable to use a sectional door in lieu of a coiling door similar to what is being installed on newer facilities at the Airport. Work will include removal of the existing overhead door, Installation of an 8" x 12" tube steel post in the middle of the opening, and installation of (2) 10'-4" wide doors.
Project Justification:
Dock 3 is the only dock that has a single coil door for both compactors. This door is heavy and problematic and if the door gets stuck and can't be opened, both compactors cannot be dumped. Installing sectional doors would make maintenance easier as it would match with the majority of other doors at the Airport.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2025 April 2026 July 2026
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$245,000 $77,000 $2,000 $2,000 $74,000 $400,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$400,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
62 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Gateway Skybridge Door Replacement
Project Description:
This project will replace the 7 foot tall, 12,000 lb. overhead coiling fire doors on the north end of the skybridges at the Terminal building. The preference would be to replace them with a similar design to what is installed in the passenger tunnels, with a roll-up door in the middle, and double doors on each end. The double doors would be on magnetic hold-opens.
Project Justification:
The overhead coil doors at the Terminal to Gateway Skybridges are extremely heavy, have long lead times, and are dangerous to operate and maintain. Each door has built-in personnel access doors to allow pass-through when lowered, and these have already sustained some damage due to raising and lowering for testing. Installing permanent personnel doors lowers operational and maintenance costs and ensures operational use in the event of a fire. Additionally, if they fail, it will take months to repair and the entire bridge will need to be shut down. The new configuration would allow the bridges to remain operational by using the double doors in the event that the coiling door in the middle needed to be shut down for repairs.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
7/1/2025 April 2026 October 2026
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$1,025,000 $164,000 $10,000 $10,000 $308,000 $1,517,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$1,517,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
63 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:34R Glycol Pump Station Modifications
Project Description:
The pumps, valves and controls in the 34R glycol pump station have been in service for over 25 years and are approaching the end of their service life. The control panel components are obsolete and the pumps and valves are showing signs of deterioration due to the corrosive nature of the deicing fluid. New pumps and controls will be more efficient, require less maintenance, and safeguard against system failure. This pump station receives all of the runoff from the Taxiway L and 34R deicing pads. Any kind of equipment failure at this station would cripple
Project Justification:
This glycol pump station was put into service in 1997. The pumps, valves and controls are antiquated and need to be replaced. A budget quote from The Coombs-Hopkins Company, the local Gorman Rupp pump distributor, was provided for replacement of all the existing equipment inside the pump station. No excavation is anticipated and the existing underground piping and electrical would remain in place and be reused. Due to the long lead times for the equipment, purchasing the equipment in advance would allow the airport to control the timeline since the pump station is critical to airport operations. The construction contract would be to install the owner furnished equipment similar to other glycol pump station projects done in the past.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2025 April 2026 September 2026
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$270,000 $200,000 $3,000 $200,000 $54,000 $727,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$727,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
64 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Taxiways A&B Modifications (Design)
Project Description:
Islands will be defined and created between Taxiways A and B at 1 West and 2 West. The project will also require Taxiway B nomenclature changes that will update other signs along Taxiways A and B. The project will install the required electrical infrastructure for lights and signs, repair any damaged pavement in the area, and install new striping to bring the intersections into compliance.
Project Justification:
FAA Part 139 inspectors have recommended several changes to the islands on Taxiways A and B at 1 West and 2 West to enhance safety. This project will construct those changes to bring the airfield into compliance under FAR Part 139.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2025 July 2026 December 2026
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$2,259,000 $361,000 $45,000 $2,000 $339,000 $3,006,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$1,974,000 $1,032,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
65 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Truck Water Fill Station
Project Description:
This project will install a 3-inch water service and meter to quickly fill large capacity Airport maintenance equipment near the vehicle wash facility at North Support for use during runway rubber and paint removal operations. Work will include asphalt pavement removal, unclassified excavation, a water service connection, back-flow prevention, installation of approximately 100 linear feet of 3-inch diameter PVC waterline, placement and compaction of engineered fill, and asphalt patching.
Project Justification:
In the past, fire hydrants were used to fill up large capacity equipment used for airfield maintenance. However, Public Utilities has determined that this practice is no longer acceptable and is requiring a metered connection. It is important to efficiently refill equipment and get it back to work, especially during runway maintenance closures. Airport maintenance equipment that will use this water service includes four (4) high pressure paint and rubber removal trucks, each with a capacity of 3,000 gallons of water, which need to be filled multiple times during a shift.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2025 April 2026 June 2026
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$160,000 $45,000 $2,000 $5,000 $48,000 $260,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$260,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
66 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:SVRA Control Tower NEPA & Siting Study
Project Description:
The recent Master Plan conducted for South Valley Regional Airport (SVRA) has identified that the design and construction of a modern and efficient control tower at SVRA is essential for the safe and smooth management of air traffic operations. This project will begin this process by providing the funding necessary to complete the NEPA process and a Siting Study that are required by the FAA.
Project Justification:
Airports with similar airspace challenges as South Valley Regional Airport (SVRA) generally have an Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) if they have more than 200 based aircraft and/or 80,000 operations. SVRA has approximately 100,000 annual operations and 177-based aircraft. Based on a conversation with the FAA Airport District Office (ADO), SVRA has exceeded the eligibility benchmarks and needs to begin planning for this tower.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2025 N/A November 2027
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$1,000,000 $1,000,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$950,000 $50,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
67 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:SVRA Dual Taxiways
Project Description:
Construction of two new parallel Group II taxilanes at South Valley Regional Airport (SVRA) is needed to support continued corporate and T-Hangar development as shown on the airport's Master Plan. This project will support future development of the airport and continued migration of piston aircraft away from SLCIA to support the future FBO operator. Work will consist of unclassified excavation, stabilization, import of engineered fill, asphalt placement, and striping.
Project Justification:
This project will provide access from Taxiways A and B to the airport's future hangar development areas. This taxilane is a key access point for the continued expansion of the airport. With the overwhelming demand for both corporate and T-hangars, this project will provide an essential access into the area to enable new hangar development at SVRA.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2025 June 2026 October 2026
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$3,948,000 $624,000 $79,000 $2,000 $790,000 $5,443,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$913,500 $4,529,500
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
68 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Economy Lot Pavement Reconstruction (Design)
Project Description:
This project is part of the ongoing Pavement Management Program to maintain the Airport's pavement network at an acceptable level of service while minimizing the cost of maintenance and rehabilitation. Work includes a geotechnical investigation in the west portion of the Economy Parking Lot to evaluate pavement distresses and provide recommendations for reconstruction and pavement design.
Project Justification:
Various roads and parking lots throughout the Airport campus are showing signs of distress and require corrective action to avoid further aging and deterioration. The pavement in the west portion of the Economy Parking Lot is approximately 20-years old and has reached the end of its useful life.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2025 April 2026 October 2026
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$374,000 $374,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$374,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
69 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Economy Lot Pavement Rehabilitation
Project Description:
This project is part of the ongoing Pavement Management Program to maintain the airport's pavement network at an acceptable level of service while minimizing the cost of maintenance and rehabilitation. The project will consist of surface preparation, crack sealing, asphalt seal coat, pavement markings, and isolated full depth repairs in the Economy Parking Lot.
Project Justification:
Various roads and parking lots throughout the airport campus are showing signs of distress and require corrective action to avoid further aging and deterioration. Maintaining and preserving a pavement in "Good" condition versus rehabilitating a pavement in "Fair to Poor" condition is four to five times less expensive and increases pavement useful life.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2025 May 2026 September 2026
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$1,119,000 $259,000 $22,000 $10,000 $168,000 $1,578,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$1,578,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
70 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Economy Parking Lot EVCS
Project Description:
SLCDA has created a Master Plan for a phased installation program of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS) relative to the annual purchase of electric vehicles in Utah. In the past, the airport has received rebates from Rocky Mountain Power which have reimbursed a percentage of the cost to purchase and install EVCSs on the airport campus. This year the airport will apply for funding incentives to install twenty (20) dual port Level 2 EVCS in the Economy Parking Lot. This will require new electrical switchgear and panel boards along with all associated electrical feeders, conduits, equipment racks, and housekeeping pads. Work includes trenching, conduit, wire installation and new concrete/asphalt patching. The project will include rough in electrical for a future gate at the entrance to the lot in the event the public is charged for electric vehicle charging service.
Project Justification:
Salt Lake City is designated as a Serious Non-attainment Area for EPA's 24-hour standard for particulate matter PM2.5. Fine particulate matter, or PM2.5 is an air pollutant resulting from motor vehicle emissions that contributeto respiratory problems. This project will promote additional options for sustainable transportation and will educe area emissions that contribute to fine particulate matter. The airport is proposing to install twenty (20) dual port Level 2 EVCS in the Economy Parking Lot. The presence of electric vehicle charging infrastructure supports the decision by airport employees and the traveling public to purchase electric vehicles and reduce their anxiety surrounding electric vehicle usage.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2025 April 2026 November 2026
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$804,000 $53,000 $2,000 $2,500 $201,000 $1,062,500
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$900,000 $1,062,500
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
71 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure - Phase V (FY26)
Project Description:
The Salt Lake City Department of Airports has developed a Master Plan for the phased installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS) in alignment with the growing annual purchase of electric vehicles in Utah. To support this transition, new infrastructure is necessary. This project involves installing two (2) Level 3 charging stations and five (5) Level 2 charging stations in the proposed south employee parking lot. The scope of work includes providing new primary power service, electrical switchgear, branch circuits, and concrete flatwork.
Project Justification:
Salt Lake City is designated as a Serious Non-attainment Area for EPA's 24-hour standard for particulate matter PM2.5. Fine particulate matter, or PM2.5 is an air pollutant resulting from motor vehicle emissions that contribute to respiratory problems. This project will promote additional options for sustainable transportation and will reduce area emissions that contribute to fine particulate matter. The airport will be applying for AIP grants annually to offset the costs associated with this work. This project is a placeholder for when these grants are awarded.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2025 April 2026 August 2026
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$810,000 $65,000 $8,000 $50,000 $243,000 $1,176,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$750,000 $426,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
72 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:PAB Electrical Equipment Upgrade
Project Description:
The Parking Administration Building (PAB) electrical equipment has reached the end of it's life expectancy and is in need of replacement. This project will replace the existing uninterruptible power supply (UPS), the automatic transfer switch, and emergency generator because replacement parts have become difficult to procure. Along with replacing these items, it will be necessary to connect additional existing electrical circuits to the new UPS and generator to ensure seamless operation during utility power outages. Additional IT servers, data switches, and parking vendor (SP+) equipment needs to be connected to the building UPS instead of the existing stand alone rack mounted UPS.
Project Justification:
The existing electrical equipment that supports the HUB Parking system is approximately 20 years old and spare parts are difficult to procure. If the equipment fails due to power outages, it will cause major delays in vehicles exiting the parking toll plaza as well as a loss in parking lot revenue.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2025 November 2026 December 2027
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$507,000 $101,000 $5,000 $5,000 $127,000 $745,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$745,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
73 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Rental Car Overflow Storage Lot Improvements
Project Description:
This project will expand and secure rental car overflow storage parking at the old Continental Reservations Building site along North Temple. This includes removal of landscaping, grading, fencing improvements, and placing of asphalt millings around the existing asphalt areas expanding the area to be subdivided between rental car companies. The existing lot has limited use due to portions being located in the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). The improvements will provide approximately 3.25 acres of overflow rental car storage.
Project Justification:
On-site rental car companies need storage space during slow rental periods and/or during fleetexchanges that usually occur twice a year. Rental car companies are hesitant to park/store vehicles inunsecure remote lots due to theft and vandalism. Ground Transportation utilizes the North Templearea for staging Transportation Network Companies (TNC) and other Ground Transportation (GT)providers. When this GT function moves, it will be beneficial to make improvements such as placing asurface of millings and adding fencing so that the property can generate income as it will be leased byrental car operators.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2025 May 2026 August 2026
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$834,000 $173,000 $5,000 $20,000 $167,000 $1,199,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$1,199,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
74 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Rental Car QTA Equipment Replacement
Project Description:
The rental car Quick Turn Around (QTA) has been operational since March 2016 and systems are wearing out and beginning to fail. Needed projects include: new vacuum system to increase the capacity of the exhaust fans and to reduce excessive heat in the main vacuum room where the heat is damaging mechanical components; replacing the radiant tube heaters in the QTA and Rental Service Sites (RSS) with exterior rated and updated heaters; replacing aging QTA HVAC systems with updated Mitsubishi split systems; replacing current pressure washers in wash bays with new water cannons to eliminate the need for car wash prep stations; and replacing existing LG VRF (Variable Refrigerant Flow or Heat Pump) systems with a Mitsubishi system in the RSS sites and replacing associated piping.
Project Justification:
The QTA building belongs to the airport and needs to remain fully functional to accommodate the rental car operations that serve our customers. Failure to maintain the building and systems will result in malfunctions which would negatively impact the ability of our providers to have vehicles ready to rent in a timely fashion to arriving customers with reservations. Most of the equipment is used on a daily basis and is becoming expensive and almost impossible to repair.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2025 February 2026 October 2026
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$2,394,000 $287,000 $24,000 $24,000 $479,000 $3,208,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$3,208,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
75 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Rental Car Reallocation
Project Description:
This project will reallocate space for rental car companies in the Gateway as well as in the Ready Return area on the first level of the Parking Garage by adjusting the fencing and barricades between the Parking Garage and QTA and rearranging fences, walls, and doors in the Service Site area. There are currently 7 separate areas for rental car companies in the Gateway; the walls and counter space will be readjusted to accommodate 5 rental car companies. This will include the removal of one wall between brands as well as adding a wall. In the Ready Return area of the Parking Garage, one exit booth will be removed, three new return lanes with "tiger teeth" will be added, one new exit booth will be added, existing exit booths will be moved, and barricades rearranged. At the QTA, fencing will be rearranged, a new fence added, and barricades modified. At the Service Site, fences will be repositioned around the parking areas and doors will be changed for the new arrangement.
Project Justification:
The current ready return area is approximately 600 stalls short of the justified demand for on-site rental cars. Thisdeficit will grow to over 800 stalls by 2037. With the upcoming solicitation for a new rental car agreement, it isnecessary to begin planning for rental car growth to accommodate new entrants and current deficits in rental carspace.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2025 November 2025 June 2026
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$1,175,000 $143,000 $7,000 $7,000 $169,000 $1,500,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$1,500,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
76 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:SkyChef Building Demolition
Project Description:
This project will include the demolition of the existing LSG SkyChef building and associated infrastructure,including the removal of adjacent site materials, footings, and foundation elements. All demolition debris will behauled off site and disposed of as required. Existing utilities will be capped and/or removed as necessary. Cleanfill dirt will be brought in and compacted to bring the site back to grade level. A gravel top course will make thesite level with surrounding site elements such as landscaping, concrete, and asphalt. The total area affected isapproximately 51,875 s.f.
Project Justification:
The current ready return area is approximately 600 stalls short of the justified demand for on-site rental cars. Thisdeficit will grow to over 800 stalls by 2037. With the upcoming solicitation for a new rental car agreement, it isnecessary to begin planning for rental car growth to accommodate new entrants and current deficits in rental carspace.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2025 April 2026 August 2026
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$1,515,000 $182,000 $15,000 $15,000 $379,000 $2,106,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$2,106,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
77 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:2300 West Realignment
Project Description:
This project involves site development within General Aviation Zone 3, located on the east side of Salt Lake City International Airport (SLCIA), to facilitate future expansion. Work includes construction of a new access road, removal of existing pavements, and relocation of existing utilities.
Project Justification:
With unprecedented demand for corporate hangar developments at the SLCIA, the airport is quickly running out of development ready sites for hangars. Without this project, the site will remain unsuitable for development, and the airport may experience a loss of revenue, as well as the potential forfeiture of future leasable assets at this location.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2025 April 2026 August 2026
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$1,515,000 $323,000 $30,000 $25,000 $303,000 $2,196,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$2,196,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
78 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:NWS Sewer Main Replacement
Project Description:
This project will replace the sewer lateral at the National Weather Service building located on the east side of the Airport at 2242 West North Temple between the building and the City's main line. The sewer lateral is approximately 120 feet long and goes through the landscaping, asphalt parking lot, sidewalk, and curbing.
Project Justification:
The lateral sewer line that exits from the National Weather Service building has several large bellies in it causing sewage to get stuck resulting in backups inside the building. The existing line requires increased maintenance and periodic jetting with the concern of damage to tenant space and equipment.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2025 September 2025 November 2025
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$98,000 $60,000 $2,000 $10,000 $29,000 $199,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$199,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
79 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Terminal Drive Resurfacing
Project Description:
This project includes a 2-inch mill and overlay on Terminal Drive and associated ramps with localized repairs to address fatigue cracking. Three exit ramps along Terminal Drive will also be reconstructed due to a considerable amount of load-related distresses. Work includes traffic management, asphalt milling, reconditioning of the existing base course, unclassified excavation, placement of engineered fill, asphalt paving, and the application of pavement markings.
Project Justification:
As the primary entrance and exit to the airport, Terminal Drive has a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of 65 and 63 with local areas like the 3700 West off-ramp being as low as 28, indicating pavement in "Very Poor" to "Fair" condition. If this project is delayed much longer, the roadway will likely need a more costly partial reconstruction due to damage to the base courses. Maintaining this critical roadway is an important part of providing access to the terminal.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
July 2025 April 2026 October 2026
Construction Cost Design, Construction Admin., & Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Estimated Cost at Completion
$1,908,000 $349,000 $38,000 $25,000 $286,000 $2,606,000
AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds
$2,606,000
PROJECT LOCATION
Salt Lake City Airport Capital Projects
80 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
The Salt Lake City Golf Division
The Golf Division operates seven full-service golf courses at six Salt Lake City locations providing quality
recreational experiences at a competitive price for Salt Lake City residents and visitors from surrounding
cities and various out of state locations. Golf Course Capital Projects are funded, primarily, from excess
revenue generated by user fees. The Golf Division has produced excess revenue over the past 3 years
and is able to begin re-investing funds into long-overdue projects.
In addition, for the FY22 budget the Golf Division implemented a Golf CIP Fee increase from $1 to $2 per
every 9 holes played to bring more capital into the Golf CIP Fund to increase funding from this source for
additional future projects.
The Golf Division has budgeted $13,612,735 for Capital Improvement Projects in FY26. The Golf Division is
in the middle of a multi-year project to improve tee box hitting surfaces by re-leveling and re-sodding
many of the tee box areas at each course and has allocated $60,000 in FY26 from the Golf CIP Fund. The
Golf Division is in the middle of a multi-year project to repair existing cart paths and construct some new
carts paths and has allocated $625,000 for FY26. The Golf Division will undergo a major project installing
a new irrigation system at the Rose Park golf course ($5,500,000) and Nibley Park golf course
($3,000,000). Other significant projects include new maintenance buildings at Bonneville and Rose Park,
on-course restrooms at 4 golf courses and driving range hitting facility at Glendale golf course.
As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses, the Golf Division will
be using $501,328 in FY26 to purchase additional equipment.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
81 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Cart Path Improvements
Project Address:All 6 SLC Golf Courses
Project Description:
The Golf Division will be doing cart path improvements at all 6 courses ($625,000). Well-maintained golf cart paths are critical for the overall customer experience and for helping to preserve golf course playing conditions. The existing paths are decades behind receiving proper repair and expansion. Additionally, with slight modifications, many cart paths can be used by non-golfers during the off season or other times when conditions are not ideal for golf.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Lands - Golf
Project Type:Improvement
Category: Capital
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
Golf CIP Funds $625,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
82 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Irrigation Improvements – Rose Park
Project Address:Rose Park
Project Description:
The Golf Division will be doing irrigation improvements at Rose Park ($5,500,000). The current mainline system is as old as 65 years and is in desperate need of replacement. This project also includes a turfgrass reduction plan and some redesign of certain holes to allow for a more efficient system, utilizing fewer heads and potential water use reduction of up to 40%.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Lands - Golf
Project Type:Improvement
Category: Capital
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
Golf CIP Funds $5,500,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
83 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Irrigation Improvements – Nibley Park
Project Address:Nibley Park
Project Description:
The Golf Division will be making irrigation improvements at Nibley Park ($3,000,000). The Nibley Park golf course is currently the only golf course in the state that is still irrigated manually. A new system will provide needed control and efficiency providing annual water use reductions.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Lands - Golf
Project Type:Improvement
Category: Capital
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
Golf Operating Fund $3,000,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
84 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Maintenance Buildings
Project Address:Bonneville, Rose Park
Project Description:
The Golf Division will be building new maintenance buildings for Bonneville and Rose Park golf courses ($1,000,000).
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Lands - Golf
Project Type:Improvement
Category: Capital
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
Golf CIP Fund $1,000,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
85 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Maintenance Equipment
Project Address:All 6 SLC Golf Courses
Project Description:
As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses, the Golf Division will be using $501,328 in FY26 to purchase additional used equipment (usually lease-return equipment from high-end private courses). The plan would be to purchase equipment if available such as Sprayer, Groundsmaster, Greensmaster.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Lands - Golf
Project Type:Equipment
Category: Capital
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
Golf CIP Fund $501,328
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
86 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:New Construction Projects
Project Address:Glendale
Project Description:
The Golf Division will be entering into the planning phases of a new construction project at Glendale Golf Course ($1,500,000). The projects consist of a double-decker range structure and new fencing at Glendale. This project will position the Glendale driving range to take advantage of changing market conditions and will expand the range capacity and extend the use of the range by 3 to 4 additional months annually, having a significant increase in driving range revenue generation and providing an enhanced recreation opportunity for City residents and visitors.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Lands - Golf
Project Type:Construction
Category: Capital
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
Golf CIP Fund $1,500,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
87 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:On Course Restroom
Project Address:Forest Dale, Glendale, Nibley Park, Rose Park
Project Description:
The Golf Division will be doing an on course restroom at Forest Dale, Glendale, Nibley Park and Rose Park ($600,000). These courses don’t have a permanent restroom structure on the course. It is a highly requested amenity by customers.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Lands - Golf
Project Type:Improvements
Category: Capital
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
Golf CIP Fund $600,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
88 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Parking Lot Surfacing
Project Address:Glendale, Nibley Park
Project Description:
The Golf Division will be resurfacing the parking lots at Glendale and Nibley Park golf courses ($398,040).
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Lands - Golf
Project Type:Improvements
Category: Capital
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
Golf CIP Fund $398,040
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
89 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Pump Replacement
Project Address:Glendale
Project Description:
The Golf Division will be replacing the first of five irrigation pumps at Glendale golf course ($25,000). The replacement of these pumps will take place over a 5-year period. This is the second of 5 pumps that are nearing their life expectancy. At any time if one of these pumps goes down it will have impact on our ability to irrigate the golf course.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Lands - Golf
Project Type:Replacement
Category: Capital
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
Golf CIP Fund $25,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
90 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Range Fencing
Project Address:Mountain Dell, Rose Park
Project Description:
The Golf Division will be replacing driving range fencing at Mountain Dell and Rose Park ($500,000). The projects consist of removal of existing damaged fencing and replacing it with new fencing material.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Lands - Golf
Project Type:Improvements
Category: Capital
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
Golf CIP Fund $500,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
91 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Roof Repair
Project Address:Forest Dale
Project Description:
The Golf Division will be doing a new roof at Forest Dale ($150,000).
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Lands - Golf
Project Type:Improvements
Category: Capital
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
Golf CIP Fund $150,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
92 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Tee Box Leveling
Project Address:All 6 SLC Golf Courses
Project Description:
The Golf Division will be doing tee box leveling at all 6 courses ($60,000). Salt Lake City customer satisfaction surveys and course evaluation initiatives have shown that the biggest area of improvement needed is the condition of the tee boxes. This is an area where course labor can be utilized to perform a large portion of the work. The Golf Division proposes utilizing Golf CIP funds to pay for needed equipment and supplies. Each course has undertaken a four-year plan to address tee box leveling of existing tee boxes and to begin construction of new forward tee boxes.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Lands - Golf
Project Type:Replacement
Category: Capital
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
Golf CIP Fund $60,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
93 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Windows & Doors
Project Address:Mountain Dell
Project Description:
The Golf Division will be replacing the windows and doors to the clubhouse at Mountain Dell golf course (184,695).
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Lands - Golf
Project Type:Improvements
Category: Capital
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
Golf CIP Fund $184,695
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
94 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Retaining Wall on #1 and Stairs on #10
Project Address:Bonneville
Project Description:
The Golf Division will be rebuilding the retaining wall on hole #1 and replacing the stairs from hole #10 that go from parking lot at the Bonneville golf course ($70,000).
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Lands - Golf
Project Type:Improvements
Category: Capital
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
Golf CIP Fund $70,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf’s annual operational budgets.
Salt Lake City Golf Capital Projects
95 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
This page intentionally left blank
The Salt Lake City Public Utilities
Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) has four distinct utilities, water, sewer, storm water, and street lighting. Each operates as an independent enterprise fund, meaning they are not supported by tax dollars. Instead, funding comes from user fees, fund reserves, revenue bonds, and occasionally grants or subsidized loans from state or federal sources.
To support major infrastructure investments, SLCDPU is utilizing a Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan to finance a portion of the water reclamation facility construction. Additionally, a Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant is supporting the City Creek Water Treatment Plant reconstruction, and an American Rescue Plan Act grant is financing the floodplain remapping project in the Granary District Floodplain.
Utility rates, set based on cost-of-service analysis, ensure that customers pay for the services they receive. Given the infrastructure-heavy nature of these utilities, SLCDPU relies on a long-term project and financing strategy to effectively manage its assets.
The capital budget is organized by fund, with detailed cost centers under each. For Fiscal Year 2026, SLCDPU is managing over 82 capital projects across its four utility funds, in addition to ongoing projects. Many capital projects span multiple fiscal years – often designed in one year and built in the next. The budget prioritizes high-need projects identified through the Department’s Capital Asset Program (CAP). The largest project underway is the replacement of the water reclamation facility, with estimated completion in Fiscal Year 2027. Other system components are also aging and will require increased investment in the coming years. For instance, SLCDPU’s three water treatment plants, built in the 1950s and early 1960s, are due for major updates. City Creek’s reconstruction is scheduled for completion in 2027, while planning is underway for two remaining plants.
SLCDPU’s capital planning is shaped by a complex mix of federal, state, and local regulations, as well as water rights and exchange agreement obligations – all of which influence project priorities and timeline.
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
97 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Water Main Replacements
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
SLCDPU has over 1,300 miles of aging water pipe. To support continued operation of this system the FY 2025 -2026 budget includes $2,500,000 for the rehabilitation of the Upper Conduit transmission line. Master plan projects include: $4,000,000 for the construction of the North Bench Pump Station; $200,000 to continue to design work on the East-West Conveyance Line; and $75,000 for the pre-design of the City Creek Treatment Line to Morris Reservoir. This category also provides $425,000 for efforts on the Kearns Line Replacement, the Heughs Canyon neighborhood Water Main Replacement, and the R18 PRV Replacement. In addition, $1,250,000 is designated to support routine replacement of pipelines in poor condition at various locations in the system. The department is also working to enhance its approach to prioritizing pipeline replacements and addressing corrosion related issues within the system.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $5,950,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
98 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Treatment Plant Improvements
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
All three city-owned water treatment plants (WTPs), originally built in the 1950's and early 1960's, are approaching the end of their operational life and will require full reconstruction. The City Creek WTP will be rebuilt firs, supported by a FEMA BRIC grant that provides a 70% match, up to $36.6M. Planned work in the fiscal year includes construction management services ($2,350,000), construction ($50,540,000), and continued public engagement ($200,000).
Reconstruction of the Big Cottonwood WTP will be postponed until sufficient budget is available to construct this important project. In the meantime, $600,000 is allocated to support the design and public engagement efforts of the future rebuild. However, the SLA Replacement – Cottonwoods Connection pipeline ($7,450,000) will continue as part of a regionalization strategy that allows Big Cottonwood Creek water to be treated using available capacity of the existing Little Cottonwood WTP. This pipeline will serve as redundancy to both the Big Cottonwood WTP and the portion of the Big Cottonwood Conduit that conveys drinking water from the plant to the City’s drinking water distribution system.
Additionally, $2,000,000 is included in this cost center to replace aging or failing components as needed, ensuring regulatory compliance while larger projects are developed and be funded.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $63,140,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Estimated operational increase of $500,000 per/year (City Creek)
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
99 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Deep Pump Wells
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
Deep pump wells provide the city with reliable and redundant water supplies that supplement surface water and third-party water supply agreements. The Department is working to address critical water supplies issues associated with its deep wells. This budget addresses the Artesian Well ($500,000), which was destroyed in a recent tree collapse.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $500,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
100 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Meter Change-Out Program
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
The budget includes the continuation of the small meter change out program piloted in 2015 and initiated in 2018. Metering water consumption by customers is the source of our revenue. Approximately 55,000, or 68%, of the system’s water meters have been replaced with advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) read meters. With optimal conditions, 10,000 to 12,000 meters per year can be replaced. Supply chain issues have created delays thus replacement is planned at 8,000 meters per year. The plan is to complete the residential AMI meter change out program in the next 2 ½ to 3 years. AMI technology provides hourly usage information instead of relying on monthly data. An online portal provides our customers with information to better manage their water usage and alerts them to the status of their water service. Better information will assist us in water conservation efforts.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $2,500,000
Priority: Ongoing program
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
101 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Water Service Connections
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
Water service extends beyond the corporate boundaries of Salt Lake City. Approximately 37% of our service connections are in this outlying area. Repair and replacement of these connections are part of an ongoing program. The components of this program are service line replacements, new connections, and small and large meter maintenance and replacement. Public Utilities is proceeding to implement the EPA’s Lead and Copper Rule Revision (LCRR) by performing inventories, sampling plans, public outreach, and lateral service line replacements. The plan will include resources, personnel, and capital needs. Budget associated with the LCRR includes $2,000,000 to support pothole work associated with inventory development and service line material identification.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $4,950,000
Priority: Project/need specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Estimated operational increase of $100,000 per year associated with LCRR line replacement and temporary filters.
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
102 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Storage Reservoirs
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
SLCDPU owns and operates seven raw water reservoirs that store snow run-off. Little Dell and five of SLCDPU’s reservoirs are used to store water that is treated for drinking water. All seven of the reservoirs are a contingent way for the Department to meet exchange agreements for secondary water. Three of the reservoirs are used by ski areas for snowmaking, and three of the reservoirs are used for flood control. The raw water storage reservoir at Mountain Dell has a $250,000 proposed budget to design a rehabilitation of its spillway. SLCDPU will pursue matching grant funds for the engineering and planning of both Lake Mary Dam and Red Pine Dam’s restoration. This is supplemented by a $1,020,000 budget request for the match and additional design and emergency planning associated with the grant award. SLCDPU will proceed with the design of the rehabilitation of the piping of Little Dell Dam ($150,000). The Red Butte Dam controls has an interface and control system that needs to be repaired. The Red Butte Dam control panels will be replaced ($300,000) and concrete repairs will be made at Mountain Dell ($40,000).
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $1,760,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
103 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Culverts, Flumes & Bridges
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
These secondary water conveyance systems are critical to maintaining our water exchange agreements. The Rehabilitation and Replacement of the JSL ($100,000) which will address emergent JSL replacement needs required to maintain water exchange.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $100,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
104 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Distribution Reservoirs (Tanks)
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
SLCDPU has over 100,000,000 gallons of finished water storage in 22 tanks and reservoirs. These components require on-going inspection and maintenance. The location and elevation of these facilities is critical to the operation of the water distribution system. The budget includes $500,000 dedicated to valve replacements at the Tanner Reservoir and $500,000 associated with the interior coating of the Eastwood North Tank.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $1,000,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
105 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Maintenance & Repair Shops (Water Utility)
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
SLCDPU is evaluating properties for future use by the department. The budgeted $450,000 is to evaluate the feasibility of expanding the SLCDPU campus at the existing location or relocating the SLCDPU campus to meet existing needs and address safety concerns. This evaluation will consider the cost benefit of campus improvements and will assess the department’s ability to mitigate financial impacts by leveraging existing assets.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $450,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible, long term operational costs to be evaluated with feasibility assessments through design.
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
106 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Treatment Plants
Project Address:1365 West 2300 North, Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Project Description:
The largest budgeted item in this category is for the construction of a new water reclamation facility. The $48,865,000 estimate represents the continuation of a multi-year project and includes design, construction, and program management. Existing plant improvement projects include Capital Asset Rehabilitation and Upgrades for $1,300,000 and Cogeneration Controls for $750,000. These existing plant improvements are critical to maintaining existing operations while the new water reclamation facility is commissioned.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Sewer Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $50,915,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
The operational cost of the wastewater treatment facility is anticipated to increase by $6,000,000 annually, or by approximately 40%, with the completion of the New WRF project. This increase in operational costs is associated with increased chemical, power, and other miscellaneous operational costs attributed to the new treatment process. This estimate will be refined as construction progresses.
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
107 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Collection Lines
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
SLCDPU has over 667 miles of aging sewer collections pipelines. Proposed budget within this category includes pipe renewal & replacement projects, City/County/State driven projects, and master plan projects. Master plan projects budgeted item in this category and total $2,845,000. This includes $225,000 for 500 South Capacity Upgrades (3400 West to Orange Street) land and easements, $620,000 for MP30 – 200 East from 300 South to 500 South Upsizing, and $2,000,000 for 1800 North Sewer Realignment Phase 3 construction. Master plan projects identified within this category support system condition improvements and growth-related capacity constraints. Pipe renewal & replacement projects are budgeted for $17,200,000. These projects consist of the 1% System Renewal Project ($3,000,000), Beck Street Trunk Line Rehabilitation construction ($5,000,000), 1200 W Trunk Line Rehabilitation construction ($9,000,000), and design of the Elgin Ave Sewer Replacement ($200,000). Project budgets to support City, County and State driven projects are estimated at $200,000 which includes Misc. Public Services Projects. Other Collection Lines projects include the Siphon Inspection project which will perform a condition assessment of the Surplus Canal Siphon ($200,000) and the Maintenance Access Rehab Program (400,000) which will rehabilitate failed maintenance access holes. Program management and emergent project support total $1,120,000.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Sewer Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $21,965,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
108 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Maintenance & Repair Shops (Sewer Utility)
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
SLCDPU is evaluating properties for future use by the department. The budgeted $350,000 is to evaluate the feasibility of expanding the SLCDPU campus at the existing location or relocating the SLCDPU campus to meet existing needs and address safety concerns. This evaluation will consider the cost benefit of campus improvements and will assess the department’s ability to mitigate financial impacts by leveraging existing assets
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Sewer Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $350,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible, long term operational costs to be evaluated with feasibility assessments through design.
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
109 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Storm Drain Lines
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
The SLCDPU has over 350 miles of storm drain in the system. This category has $2,387,000 for Collection Mains and $1,660,000 for projects budgeted for supporting City, County, and State driven projects. Other projects in this category total $400,000 for various collection lines and $300,000 for public utility defined projects. Other local area projects to be completed by city crews at various locations are budgeted to be $150,000.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Storm Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $4,897,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
110 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Riparian Corridor Improvements
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
The city places a high value on protecting its riparian corridors and SLCDPU serves as a steward to those corridors. The planned riparian project for FY 2025/2026 is Emigration –Allen Park ($450,000). This funding will continue SLCDPU’s support of the Allen Park Work and will support construction of planned Allen Park improvements. These efforts are to be coordinated with overall capital improvement efforts by the city to open and activate Allen Park to the public. Project will consider streambank and channel stabilization, culvert removal, emergent benches, and debris basins.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Storm Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $450,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
111 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Landscaping
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
Stormwater landscaping provides an important role to water quality and the aesthetic value of the city. The landscaping budget includes $50,000 for the Northwest Oil Drain canal remediation. This Northwest Oil Drain budget is to reserve funding for cleanup and closeout on the remediated portions of the Northwest Drain. The Cornell Wetlands Revegetation project is to eliminate invasive vegetation and revegetate open areas of the Cornell Wetland area with hardy, open-space vegetation.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Storm Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $50,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
112 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Storm Water Lift Stations
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
The Stormwater Utility manages 26 stormwater lift stations. Storm water lift station work planned with the FY 25/26 budget to support the stormwater utility includes the on-going construction of the Northwest Drain Lift Station ($1,600,000). This will provide improved capacity and reliability along the Northwest Drain. Other Stormwater Lift Station efforts include an annual project which supports emergency needs ($100,000) and design for the proposed Swede Town Lift Station ($137,000).
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Storm Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $1,837,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
113 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Detention Basins
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
Stormwater detention basins serve a critical role in managing storms and mitigating associated flooding. Detention Basins work planned for FY 25/26 includes an annual Detention Basin emergency response if needed ($100,000)
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Storm Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $100,000
Priority: Project specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
114 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Maintenance & Repair Shops (Stormwater Utility)
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
SLCDPU is evaluating properties for future use by the department. The budgeted $300,000 is to evaluate the feasibility of expanding the SLCDPU campus at the existing location or relocating the SLCDPU campus to meet existing needs and address safety concerns. This evaluation will consider the cost benefit of campus improvements and will assess the department’s ability to mitigate financial impacts by leveraging existing assets
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Storm Water Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Fund
Enterprise Funds: $300,000
Priority: Project Specific
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Negligible, long term operational costs to be evaluated with feasibility assessments through design.
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
115 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Street Lighting Projects
Project Address:Various Locations
Project Description:
Street lighting projects planned for FY 2025/2026 are budgeted for $1,240,000 to upgrade to high efficiency lighting and other system improvements on arterial streets, collector streets, and in neighborhoods. This includes budget to hire a contractor to perform inspections on new street lighting facilities, consultant support to further develop an Implementation Plan, and budget for improvements for base level lighting services and three enhanced lighting groups. The master plan developed with the implementation plan determines and guides best practices for upgrades and new lights. A smart controller pilot project is contemplated for $200,000.
Proposal ID:
Department:Public Utilities
Project Type:
Category: Street Lighting Utility CIP Projects - Enterprise Funds
Enterprise Funds: $1,440,000
Priority: Ongoing program
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Reduction in electricity costs.
Salt Lake City Public Utilities Capital Projects
116 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency
The Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency (CRA) strengthens neighborhoods and commercial
districts to improve livability, create economic opportunity and foster authentic, equitable communities.
The CRA utilizes a powerful set of financial and planning tools to support strategic development projects
that enhance the City’s housing opportunities, commercial vitality, public spaces, and environmental
sustainability. The CRA’s primary source of funds for the projects include property tax increment and
program income revenue, depending on the specific budget account.
The CRA often participates with Salt Lake City in the redevelopment or construction of city owned
infrastructure projects. As part of the CRA Budget Policy, Capital Projects are defined as any project that
anticipates multi-year funding. The allocation of funds for these projects is part of the budget approval
process and is typically contingent on the CRA Board authorizing appropriation once the specific projects
costs and details are known. Depending on the project, the timeline for this process may not follow the
City’s CIP schedule or requirements for approval.
The CRA fiscal year 2026 budget process proposes three potential City infrastructure projects:
• City Creek Daylighting: Allocates an additional $100,000 towards implementation of the daylighting
of City Creek along the Folsom Trail from 800 West to 1000 West. The total project, aimed at
improving access to nature, water quality, and flood mitigation, is estimated to cost between $15
million and $20 million.
• Japantown Art: Designates an additional $37,733 for enhancing the cultural landscape through
various art installations recommended in the Japantown Design Strategy that celebrate and
preserve Japantown’s heritage. The initiative aims to beautify the neighborhood and provide an
engaging artistic experience for both residents and visitors.
• 900 S Freeway Underpass Infrastructure: Designates a total of $50,000 for improvements to the
Mead Avenue underpass. The initiative aims to support installation of improvements to enhance
open space and encourage activation.
Salt Lake City CRA Capital Projects
117 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:City Creek Daylighting
Project Address:Folsom Corridor – North Temple Project Area
Project Description:
Appropriation of funds to support implementation of the design plan to daylight (bring to the surface) a portion of City Creek that runs north of the Folsom Trail from 800 West to 1000 West. Project goals include increasing access to nature, improving water quality and mitigating surface flooding. Landscaping improvements and other pedestrian amenities recommended as a part of the design will be coordinated with SLC Public Lands to activate the trail and create a welcoming centerpiece for the westside community. The total cost for implementation is estimated to be between $15,000,000 and $20,000,000.
Proposal ID:
Department:CRA
Project Type:
Category:
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund (CRA)$100,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Impact will be determined on a case-by-case basis, but it’s anticipated that Public Lands and Public Utilities will maintain the creek and associated amenities.
Salt Lake City CRA Capital Projects
118 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:Japantown Art
Project Address:Block 67 North Project Area
Project Description:
Appropriation of funds for the Japantown Art project, totaling $336,577. The funding is designated for enhancing the cultural landscape through various art installations that celebrate and preserve Japantown’s heritage. The initiative aims to beautify the neighborhood and provide an engaging artistic experience for both residents and visitors.
Proposal ID:
Department:CRA
Project Type:
Category:
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund (CRA)$37,733
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Impact will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Salt Lake City CRA Capital Projects
119 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Project Title:900 S Freeway Underpass Infrastructure
Project Address:State Street Project Area
Project Description:
Appropriation of funds for improvements to the Mead Avenue underpass. Funds will support installation of improvements to enhance open space and encourage activation.
Proposal ID:
Department:CRA
Project Type:
Category:
Funding Recommendations
CDCIP Board Mayor Council
General Fund (CRA)$50,000
Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense:
Impact will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Salt Lake City CRA Capital Projects
120 Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Overview of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Major Funding Sources
General Fund Dollars
(Most flexible funding source; can be spent on any project)
These are the City’s most flexible unrestricted funds available to be spent on any CIP project. The Council
transfers a portion of General Fund revenues into the CIP Fund as part of each annual budget in June.
The City collects a variety of revenue sources that all go into the General Fund such as property taxes,
sales taxes, franchise taxes, building permits and license fees, and many others. A Council audit identified
9% of ongoing General Fund revenues as an ideal funding level to help ensure the City keeps up with
capital investment needs. The City reached that 9% funding level in FY2023. In the prior two decades the
City’s annual General Fund transfer into the CIP Fund averaged closer to 7%.
Funding Our Future 0.5% Local Salt Lake City Option Sales Tax
(Critical need categories: housing, public transit, streets, and public safety; a fifth category of parks
maintenance was added in FY2023)
The 0.5% sales tax increase was authorized by the Legislature only for the capital city as part of the
State prison relocation from Draper. The City’s local option sales tax was increased as part of the
FY2019 annual budget and was branded “Funding Our Future” along with a Streets Reconstruction
Bond approved by voters (all those bond funds have now been budgeted). Prior to enacting the sales
tax increase the City conducted impact research, public hearings, open houses, workshops, letters,
online information, and other extensive outreach. The funds from the sales tax are limited to the
critical need categories as determined by the Council. The definition of the critical need categories
has evolved over the times such as expanding public safety from only police to also include 911
dispatch, fire, medical, and social workers. The number of categories was originally four and a fifth
category, parks maintenance, was added in FY2023. There is no legal limitation to the categories
which are subject to the Council’s annual appropriation process and subject to change.
Class C Funds
(State gas tax)
Class C funds are generated by the Utah State Tax on gasoline. The state distributes these funds to local
governments on a center lane mileage basis. The City’s longstanding practice has been to appropriate
Class C funds for the general purpose of street reconstruction and asphalt overlays. The Roadway
Selection Committee selects specific street segment locations as recorded in the Engineering Division’s Six
Year Pavement Plan which is regularly updated. Note that there is overlap in eligible uses between this
funding source and the County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding.
Per state law, Class C funds may be used for:
1. All construction and maintenance on eligible Class B & C roads
2. Enhancement of traffic and pedestrian safety, including, but not limited to: sidewalks, curb and
gutter, safety features, traffic signals, traffic signs, street lighting and construction of bicycle
facilities in the highway right-of-way
3. Investments for interest purposes (interest to be kept in fund)
4. Equipment purchases or equipment leases and rentals
5. Engineering and administration costs
6. Future reimbursement of other funds for large construction projects
7. Rights of way acquisition, fencing and cattle guards
8. Matching federal funds
9. Equipment purchased with B & C funds may be leased from the road department to another
department or agency
10. Construction of road maintenance buildings, storage sheds, and yards. Multiple use facilities
may be constructed by mixing funds on a proportional basis
11. Construction and maintenance of alleys
12. B & C funds can be used to pay the costs of asserting, defending, or litigating
13. Pavement portion of a bridge (non-road portions such as underlying bridge structure are not
eligible)
County Quarter Center (0.25%) Sales Tax
(Limited to transportation and streets eligible uses per state law)
The County fourth quarter-cent transportation funding is an ongoing sales tax funding source dedicated
to transportation and streets. The City has taken a progressive view of transportation beyond a vehicle-
focused perspective and uses a multi-modal, more inclusive approach (walking, biking, public transit,
accessibility and ADA, ride-share, trails, safety, scooters, etc.). The Wasatch Front Regional Council
summarized eligible uses for this funding as “developing new roads or enhancing (e.g., widening) existing
roads; funding active transportation, including bike and pedestrian projects; or funding transit
enhancements. It can also be used for maintenance and upkeep of existing facilities.” (SB136 of 2018
Fourth Quarter Cent Local Option Sales Tax Summary June 22, 2018). Revenue from the 0.25% sales tax
increase is split 0.10% for the Utah Transit Authority or UTA, 0.10% for cities and 0.05% for Salt Lake
County as of July 1, 2019 and afterwards. Note that there is overlap in eligible uses between this funding
source and Class C funds.
Impact Fee Eligibility
(Four types: fire, parks, police, and transportation / streets)
Impact fees are one-time charges imposed by the City on new development projects to help fund the cost
of providing infrastructure and services to that new development. This is part of the City’s policy that
growth should pay for growth. A project, or portion of a project, must be deemed necessary to ensure the
level of service provided can continue with the additional impacts of the new developments (such as
serving more residents or workers). As a result, it’s common for a project to only be partially eligible for
impact fee funding (the growth-related portion) so other funding sources must be found to cover the
difference. It is important to note that per state law, the City has six years from the date of collection to
spend or encumber under a contract the impact fee revenue. After six years, if those fees are not
encumbered or spent then the fees are returned to the developer with interest.
General Impact Fee Guidelines:
1. Impact fees are to be used to keep a current level of service for new growth to a City.
2. Cannot be used to cure deficiencies serving existing development.
3. May not raise the established level of service in existing development.
4. Cannot include an expense for overhead, such as any cost for staff/administration, operation, and
maintenance.
5. Impact fees can only be used to pay for the portion of the project directly attributable to growth
(it’s uncommon for projects to be 100% eligible for impact fees).
6. Must be incurred or encumbered within 6 years from the date they are collected, or they shall be
returned to the developer with interest payments per state law.
7. Must use an adopted Impact Fees Facilities Plan to determine the public facilities needed to serve
new growth and set fees costs by development type.
8. Repair and replacement projects are not growth related.
9. Upgrade projects are not growth related.
10. Repair, replacement, or upgrades can be included as part of a mixed project where the scope will
create increased capacity to serve projected growth.
11. Impact fees must be spent in the same geographic boundary (service area) in which they are
collected. The City’s Impact Fee Facilities Plan designates the entire city as the service area. The
Transportation section was updated in 2020. The other three sections were adopted in 2016.
CIP Appropriations as of 4/30/25 Budget Encumbrances Expenditures Budgetary Balance
CIP GRAND TOTALS 351,368,406 52,152,743 75,223,985 223,991,678
3000 CIP General Fund 99,521,109 9,429,006 19,941,213 70,150,889
8316070-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Warm Springs Park, 840 N 300 W 57,978 25,087 - 32,891
8317025-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 500/700 S Reconstruction 636,768 250,480 160,535 225,753
8317049-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 UTA TIGER GRANT MATCH 138,317 99,087 39,045 185
8318045-CC11009-3000-PRG10031 Bikeways Urban Trails 69,550 - 18,806 50,744
8318047-CC30004-3000-PRG10032 Rose Park Pedestrian Byway 152,283 - 112,560 39,723
8318048-FY24B2A4-3000-Miller Park Trail Access Improvements & Historic
Structures Preservation 365,012 - 277 364,735
484,146 - 35,150 448,996
CIP Appropriations as of 4/30/25 Budget Encumbrances Expenditures Budgetary Balance
8323601-CC11009-3000-PRG10035 200 S Recon Trans Corridor GF 2,687,407 208,569 695,632 1,783,206
8323604-CC11009-3000-PRG10042 3Creeks West Roadway 1,359,130 82,283 33,561 1,243,286
8323607-CC11009-3000-PRG10042 Transit Cap-Freq Trans Routes 990,000 447,986 77,904 464,110
8323612-CC11009-3000-PRG10030 1000 W Fairpark Traffic Circle 60,896 4,830 60,896 (4,830)
8323630-CC11009-3000-PRG10047 Livable Streets 1,976,444 1,132,367 580,522 263,554
8323705-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 CCB Restoration - Ins Reimburse 4,477,385 - 24,371 4,453,015
8323707-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Physical Sec Impro City Hall 413,133 65,565 184,492 163,076
8381200-CC11002-3000-PRG10042 Open Space Land Matching 11,600 - - 11,600
8395046-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Open Space Land Trust 11,603 - 5,800 5,803
8600001-CC11002-3000-PRG10045 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT - GF 377,958 94,900 267,957 15,102
8600005-CC11002-3000-PRG10021 Crime Lab Rent 46,651 - 54,226 (7,575)
8600040-CC10603-3000-PRG10037 Percent for Art 295,622 27,820 235,771 32,031
8600042-CC10603-3000-PRG10037 Maintenance Percent for Art 98,496 - 93,236 5,259
8600401-CC35001-3000-PRG10023 Parks Maintenance 83,777 6,036 124,741 (47,000)
8600402-CC35001-3000-PRG10023 Public Lands Maintenance FOF 825,868 (4,000) 459,995 369,873
8600701-CC30005-3000-PRG10022 Facilities Maintenance 469,354 8,341 429,446 31,567
8600702-CC30005-3000-PRG10040 Facilities Asset Renewal 999,323 220,756 187,809 590,758
8619408-CC35001-3000-PRG10042 Lindsay Garden Concession 400 - - 400
8619411-CC35001-3000-PRG10042 Westside Trail Connections 249,923 - - 249,923
8621600-FY24B1D5-3000-Bridge Rehabilitation Jordan River 2,648,507 - 2,066,880 581,627
8622104-CC11009-3000-PRG10050 Rail Adjacent PavementImprvmnt 70,000 34,452 17,508 18,040
8622105-CC35001-3000-PRG10023 Trails Maintenance 86 200,000 - 190,899 9,101
8622107-CC11009-3000-PRG10042 Wingate Walkway 286,750 - - 286,750
FY24B3A11-3000-Rail Spur Removal 205,000 - 150,814 54,186
FY24B5A4-3000-State Funding for Cemetery Roads and Irrigation 3,000,000 1,179,079 - 1,820,922
FY24B5A5-3000-Traffic Signal Improvement 2200W/2100 N 450,000 9,334 57,648 383,018
FY24B5D9-3000-200 South Reconstruction 625,000 - - 625,000
FY24B5D9-3000-2100 South Reconstruction 3,323,590 1,298,001 1,453,608 571,981
FY24B5D9-3000-700 South Phase 7 1,120,000 35,115 163,412 921,473
FY24B5D9-3000-Traffic Signal Upgrades (8421501)450,000 - - 450,000
FY24CIP-3000 Library Plaza Structural Assessment and Visioning 190,000 - 394 189,606
FY24CIP-3000-200 East ADA and Sidewalk Improvements 234,000 56,757 142,428 34,815
FY24CIP-3000-Alleyway Improvements-FY24-FOF 250,000 - - 250,000
FY24CIP-3000-Complete Streets Reconstruction-FY24 1,294,823 134,897 163,887 996,039
FY24CIP-3000-Cost Overrun 22,214 - - 22,214
FY24CIP-3000-Cost Overrun-FOF 225,357 - - 225,357
FY24CIP-3000-Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet 202,000 - 374 201,626
FY24CIP-3000-Crime Lab Rent 600,000 - 592,425 7,575
FY24CIP-3000-Ensign Peak Nature Park Improvements 210,000 22,600 - 187,400
FY24CIP-3000-Facilities Asset Renewal Plan-FY24 1,700,000 - - 1,700,000
FY24CIP-3000-Facilities Maintenance 350,000 30,294 73,092 246,614
FY24CIP-3000-Fire Station #1 Apparatus Bay Extension 1,148,771 148,047 515,372 485,353
FY24CIP-3000-Fire Station #14 501,400 - - 501,400
FY24CIP-3000-Fire Station #3 679,400 - - 679,400
FY24CIP-3000--Fire Station Debt Service Pmt 1,180,800 - - 1,180,800
FY24CIP-3000-Fire Station No. 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and
Amenities 438,850 - - 438,850
325,000 23,510 21,485 280,005
170,000 - - 170,000
CIP Appropriations as of 4/30/25 Budget Encumbrances Expenditures Budgetary Balance
FY24CIP-3000-Livable Streets Implementation-FY24-FOF 1,394,126 - - 1,394,126
FY24CIP-3000-Neighborhood Byways-FY24 440,000 - 372 439,628
FY24CIP-3000-North Temple Arts and Tourism District Improvements 192,689 - 20,000 172,689
FY24CIP-3000-Parks Bilingual Signage Installation 82,800 11,343 8,658 62,800
FY24CIP-3000-Percent for Art-FOF 161,518 - 20,446 141,072
FY24CIP-3000-Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion 253,500 1,753 15,229 236,519
FY24CIP-3000-Public Lands Maintenance 250,000 148,646 100,045 1,308
FY24CIP-3000-Public Way Concrete-FY24-FOF 750,000 243,752 397,068 109,181
FY24CIP-3000-Richmond Park Community Playground 212,000 - - 212,000
FY24CIP-3000-Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail, and Safety Improvements-
FOF 30,000 - 25,583 4,417
990,000 268,002 - 721,998
500,000 - - 500,000
100,000 - - 100,000
560,000 - - 560,000
CIP Appropriations as of 4/30/25 Budget Encumbrances Expenditures Budgetary Balance
FY25CIP-3000-FOF-Courts & Playgrounds 54,490 - - 54,490
FY25CIP-3000-FOF-Liberty Park Greenhouse Design and Construction
Documents 117,200 - - 117,200
FY25CIP-3000-FOF-Liberty Park Greenhouse Restoration 124,000 41,340 4,980 77,680
FY25CIP-3000-FOF-Stabilize the Fire Training Tower Deterioration 858,800 87,118 - 771,682
FY25CIP-3000-Harvey Milk Blvd LGBTQ+ and Neighborhood Visibility 30,000 - - 30,000
FY25CIP-3000-Historic Markers 30,000 - - 30,000
FY25CIP-3000-HVAC Control Replacement-Public Safety Building 1,300,000 148,377 1,048,139 103,484
FY25CIP-3000-Jordan River Trail Food Forest + Partner Garden 20,000 - 19,665 335
FY25CIP-3000-Liberty Park Greenhouse Design and Construction Documents 804,500 - - 804,500
FY25CIP-3000-Memory Grove Park Repairs, Preservation and Maintenance Plan-
Cap Maintenance 1,910,000 - - 1,910,000
1,000,000 39,858 607,533 352,609
CIP Appropriations as of 4/30/25 Budget Encumbrances Expenditures Budgetary Balance
3017 CIP GO Series 2019A Bonds 890 - - 890
8320208-CC30004-3017-PRG10042 BD 100 S North Campus to 900E 889 - - 889
8320209-CC30004-3017-PRG10042 BD 900 S 950 E to West Temple 0 - - 0
3019 CIP GO Series 2022 Bonds 11,094,614 1,501,350 5,682,016 3,911,247
8323221-CC11009-3019-PRG10042 BD 1300E 2100S Citylm 2,844,200 88,285 415,693 2,340,221
8323222-CC11009-3019-PRG10042 BD Virg. St S Temple 11thAve 1,284,545 7,471 1,296,052 (18,978)
8323224-CC11009-3019-PRG10041 BD Local streets FY24 2,999,659 194,571 2,769,245 35,843
8323227-CC11009-3019-PRG10041 BD Local streets FY25 2,000,000 1,211,023 574,106 214,870
Interest-3019-GO 2022 Interest 1,966,210 - 626,919 1,339,291
3020 CIP GO Series 2020A Bonds 616,472 - 616,472 0
8321202-CC30004-3020-PRG10041 BD Local Streets 616,472 - 616,472 0
3021 CIP STRB 2022B Non-Taxable 45,984,257 10,917,442 14,036,814 21,030,001
8323211-CC11009-3021-PRG10042 BD WestS RR Quiet Zones 6,100,000 153,367 239,785 5,706,848
8323212-CC30004-3021-PRG10042 BD Warm Spring Imprv 7,987,524 2,587,405 3,579,091 1,821,028
8323213-CC30005-3021-PRG10042 BD Cemetery 11,182,029 5,362,947 5,308,816 510,265
8323214-CC11009-3021-PRG10035 BD 600N Corridor 9,752,400 356,646 2,733,987 6,661,767
8323215-CC30004-3021-PRG10042 BD Radio Tower 7,500,000 2,457,077 2,175,134 2,867,789
Interest-3021-SRTB 2022B Interest 3,462,304 - - 3,462,304
3022 CIP STRB 2022C Fed Taxable 26,041,478 4,098,441 926,736 21,016,301
8323231-CC30004-3022-PRG10042 BD CP Transform&Gener 6,091,200 4,001,746 718,200 1,371,253
8323232-CC30004-3022-PRG10042 BD Pioneer Park 10,000,000 - - 10,000,000
8323233-CC30004-3022-PRG10042 BD Fisher Mansion Imprv 2,989,623 96,695 208,536 2,684,392
8323234-CC30004-3022-PRG10042 BD Urban Wood 1,999,942 - - 1,999,942
FY25B1D15-3022-Pioneer Park Improvements 4,960,714 - - 4,960,714
3023 CIP Transportation Fund 29,089,038 2,326,682 5,037,382 21,724,974
8321620-CC11009-3023-PRG10028 Bus Service 600 N 1000 N 741,875 - 21,454 720,422
8321622-CC11009-3023-PRG10047 NBHD St Safety Livability 20,707 - 6,200 14,507
8321623-CC11009-3023-PRG10031 Urban Trails 1,102,933 2,468 676,131 424,334
8321624-CC11009-3023-PRG10033 Complete Streets Reconstructio 483,102 19,901 175,257 287,944
8321625-CC11009-3023-PRG10035 Corridor Transformations 877,849 11,079 68,527 798,243
8321626-CC11009-3023-PRG10048 Alleyway Repaving 122,938 - 19,451 103,488
8322601-CC11009-3023-PRG10042 200 S Transit Complete Street Supplt 415,800 - - 415,800
8322607-CC11009-3023-PRG10035 Corridor Transformations 282,200 - 7,154 275,046
8322609-CC11009-3023-PRG10042 Transportation Area Studies 166,200 - 82,000 84,200
8322610-CC11009-3023-PRG10042 400 South Viaduct Trail 500,000 276,941 268,623 (45,564)
8322613-CC11009-3023-PRG10032 Neighborhood Byways 806,971 56,701 276,155 474,115
8322618-CC11009-3023-PRG10031 Urban Trails FY22 766,018 171,496 184,491 410,030
8322621-CC11009-3023-PRG10028 Transportation Safety Imprvmt 322,695 - 105,301 217,394
8322638-CC11009-3023-PRG10042 600/700N FreqTrnsNtwrkImprvmts 64,095 - 55,593 8,502
8323603-CC11009-3023-PRG10035 200 S Recon Trans Corr 1/4Cent 1,300,000 6,790 336,025 957,186
8323610-CC11009-3023-PRG10033 Complete Streets 2,387,261 457,834 1,190,621 738,806
8323611-CC11009-3023-PRG10042 California Avenue Safety Imprv 100,000 12,786 21,897 65,317
8323613-CC11009-3023-PRG10028 Sunnyside Ave Pedestrian Safe 399,560 6,900 160 392,500
8600121-CC11009-3023-PRG10030 MultiModal Intersection Signal 23,657 11,109 2,654 9,893
FY24B3A15-3023-Complete Streets Reconstruction 205,177 32,767 36,171 136,240
FY24B3A15-3023-Complete Streets Reconstruction -FY24 750,000 44,340 58,745 646,914
FY24CIP-3023-75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement 360,000 - - 360,000
FY24CIP-3023-Complete Streets Program: 2100 South, Virginia St., and Citywide-
FY24 3,293,000 263,275 732,300 2,297,425
CIP Appropriations as of 4/30/25 Budget Encumbrances Expenditures Budgetary Balance
FY24CIP-3023-Urban Trails: The Other Side Village & the 9-Line Trail 1,700,000 - - 1,700,000
FY25B2A6-3023-3200 West Complete Street Additions 100,000 - - 100,000
FY25CIP-3023-400 South Jordan River Bridge Reconstruction 860,000 - - 860,000
FY25CIP-3023-Green Loop Implementation 3,140,000 - - 3,140,000
FY25CIP-3023-Neighborhood Byways Program 950,000 902,690 - 47,310
FY25CIP-3023-Safer Crossings Citywide 300,000 - - 300,000
FY25CIP-3023-Street Overlay Program 2,750,000 49,605 - 2,700,395
FY25Key Changes-3023-Livable Streets Program 2,000,000 - - 2,000,000
FY25Key Changes-3023-Urban Trail Maintenance 200,000 - 28,148 171,853
3024 CIP GO Series 2021A Bonds 1,463,995 97,983 662,011 704,000
Interest-3024-GO 2021 Interest 1,463,995 97,983 662,011 704,000
3031 CIP CDBG 384,703 - 42,122 342,581
8319062-CC30004-3031-PRG10044 Deteriorated or Missing Concre 624 - - 624
8322061-CC30004-3031-PRG10042 SLC Trans Route 4 291,291 - 42,122 249,169
8323618-CC11009-3031-PRG10042 FY23 400 South Bus Stop Improv 92,789 - - 92,789
3032 CIP State Grants 13,704,367 7,667,903 1,696,424 4,340,040
8322425-CC30004-3032-PRG10042 Bonneville Shoreline Trail 1,300,000 299,475 1,000,187 338
8322634-CC11009-3032-PRG10042 Rose Park to Redwood Rd - UDOT 999,617 75,753 197,062 726,802
8322637-CC11009-3032-PRG10042 Railroad 4900 W 700 S Round 2 93,750 - - 93,750
8323642-CC11009-3032-PRG10042 300 West Protected Bike Lanes 2,100,000 1,166,429 396,996 536,575
FY24C6G3-3032-UDOT Contribution for HAWK Signal 155,000 - 102,178 52,822
FY25B3D4-3032-TTIF 200 South Transit Corridor Project 1,800,000 - - 1,800,000
FY25B3D5-3032-TTIF 400 South Multi Use Trail 6,356,000 6,126,247 - 229,754
FY25B3D7-3032-TTIF Westpointe/Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway 900,000 - - 900,000
3033 CIP Class C 14,769,276 2,411,878 3,927,887 8,429,511
8314031-CC11009-3033-PRG10042 Driver Feedback Signs 86,320 - 84,510 1,810
8317032-CC30004-3033-PRG10043 Bridge Maintenance Program 21,164 - 5,100 16,064
8317359-CC30004-3033-PRG10042 Gladiola to Indiana 900S Seq C 112,658 - - 112,658
8318023-CC30004-3033-PRG10042 Gladiola 900 S Imp 38,047 - - 38,047
8320502-CC11009-3033-PRG10044 Street Overlay FY20 326,568 0 212,277 114,291
8321501-CC11009-3033-PRG10033 Street Reconstruction & Overlays 21 891,249 318,763 242,436 330,050
8322501-CC11009-3033-PRG10029 Street Improvements FY22 1,216,606 34,867 893,171 288,568
8322503-CC11009-3033-PRG10042 Class C Contingency 2,076,664 - 1,573,045 503,619
8323500-CC11009-3033-PRG10029 Street Improvements FY23 3,000,000 1,644,860 61,597 1,293,543
FY24CIP-3033-Complete Streets Overlay-FY24 1,250,000 28,866 546,134 675,000
FY24CIP-3033-Complete Streets Reconstruction-FY24 2,250,000 384,522 309,617 1,555,861
FY25CIP-3033-Street Reconstruction Program 3,500,000 - - 3,500,000
3035 CIP Impact Fee - Police 56,592 - 1,540 55,052
8423003-CC10504-3035-PRG10042 IFFP Consultant Contract Amendment -
Police 9,000 - 1,540 7,460
CIP Appropriations as of 4/30/25 Budget Encumbrances Expenditures Budgetary Balance
8417018-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 1,570 - - 1,570
8418002-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Cwide Dog Lease Imp 23,262 - 19,638 3,624
8419103-CC11009-3037-PRG10042 Imperial Park Shade Accounting 6,398 - - 6,398
8419150-CC11009-3037-PRG10042 Pioneer Park 3,052,938 1,050,562 830,103 1,172,273
8419204-CC10504-3037-PRG10042 Park's Consultant's Contract 2,638 2,596 2,596 (2,554)
8420134-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Jordan Park Event Grounds 404,139 1,649 14,304 388,186
8420136-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 9Line Orchard 149,953 - 162,067 (12,114)
8420138-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Rich Park Comm Garden 12,431 - - 12,431
8420142-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Wasatch Hollow Improvements 431,860 22,382 11,481 397,996
8420406-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 54,808 - - 54,808
8420420-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 120,893 - - 120,893
8420424-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 County #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 240,239 - 143,325 96,914
8421401-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Fisher House Exploration Center 132,208 1,400 123,813 6,996
8421403-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Trailhead Prop Acquisition 21,830 - - 21,830
8422403-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Three Creeks West Bank New Park 150,736 - - 150,736
8422408-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Green Loop 200 E Design 513,788 24,243 489,546 0
8422410-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Historic Renovation Allen Park 315,770 - 156,146 159,624
8422412-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 SLC Foothills Trailhead Development 1,241,318 127,040 103,060 1,011,218
8422413-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 319,139 - 14,175 304,964
8422414-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 475,079 6,361 13,693 455,024
8422415-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 RAC Playground with Shade Sails 178,298 11,542 63,456 103,300
8423005-CC10504-3037-PRG10042 IFFP Consultant Contract Amendment -
Parks 9,000 - 1,540 7,460
8423405-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 RAC Playground Phase II 521,564 - - 521,564
8423406-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 900 S River Park Soccer Field 287,848 130 8,420 279,298
8423407-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Mem. Tree Grove Design & Infra 864,449 - - 864,449
8423408-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Gateway Triangle Property Park 499,457 - 5,511 493,946
8423409-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Lighting NE Baseball Field 299,269 - 220,000 79,269
8423451-CC30004-3037-PRG10042 Marmalade Plaza Project 996,905 - 429,207 567,698
8423452-CC11002-3037-PRG10042 Open Space Property Acquisition (City Parks)450,000 - 33,140 416,860
8423453-CC11002-3037-PRG10042 Open Space Property Acquisition (Trails)300,000 - - 300,000
8423454-CC35001-3037-PRG10042 Transfer Parks Impact Fees to Surplus Land -
Land Purchase Near RAC 0 - - 0
416,150 - - 416,150
CIP Appropriations as of 4/30/25 Budget Encumbrances Expenditures Budgetary Balance
3038 CIP Impact fee Streets 4,922,749 69,745 320,849 4,532,155
8406001-CC30004-3038-PRG10042 Gladiola Street 15,169 12,925 - 2,244
8412002-CC11009-3038-PRG10042 Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 124,593 - - 124,593
8418003-CC11009-3038-PRG10031 Bikeway Urban Trails 181,303 - 136,936 44,367
8418016-CC11009-3038-PRG10042 500 to 700 S 22,744 - - 22,744
8420110-CC11009-3038-PRG10028 Transp Safety Improvements 46,883 11,820 5,480 29,583
8420120-CC11009-3038-PRG10042 Complete Street Enhancements 18,699 - - 18,699
8421500-CC11009-3038-PRG10028 Transportation Safety Improvements IF 241,135 2,558 118,188 120,388
8421501-CC11009-3038-PRG10030 Traffic Signal Upgrades 340,236 - 53,109 287,127
8422611-CC11009-3038-PRG10042 400 South Viaduct Trail IF 90,000 25,000 - 65,000
8422614-CC11009-3038-PRG10032 Neighborhood Byways IF 104,500 - - 104,500
8422619-CC30004-3038-PRG10031 Urban Trails FY22 IF 6,500 - - 6,500
8422620-CC11009-3038-PRG10028 Transportation Safety Improvement IF 6,316 - - 6,316
8422622-CC11009-3038-PRG10035 1700S Corridor Transformation IF 35,300 - - 35,300
8423608-CC11009-3038-PRG10042 Transit Cap-Freq Trans Routes 110,000 - 5,205 104,795
FY24B3A6-3038-600/700 North Reconstruction 3,204,371 - - 3,204,371
FY24B5A7-3038-Update of the Streets IFFP - Unappropriated Transportation
Impact Fees 30,183 - - 30,183
110,000 - 513 109,488
CIP Appropriations as of 4/30/25 Budget Encumbrances Expenditures Budgetary Balance
FY25B1D15-3042-Ida Cotton Park - 2025 Construction 675,000 - - 675,000
FY25B1D15-3042-Jordan River Corridor - 2025 Design 500,000 - - 500,000
FY25B1D15-3042-Madsen Park - 2025 Construction 675,000 - - 675,000
FY25B1D15-3042-Richmond Park - 2025 or 2026 Construction 675,000 - - 675,000
FY25B1D15-3042-Steenblik Park - 2025 Construction 675,000 - - 675,000
FY25B1D15-3042-Taufer Park - 2025 or 2026 Construction 675,000 - - 675,000
Interest-3042-GO 2023A Interest 1,058,715 - - 1,058,715
7203 Misc Grants - State Grants 4,806,102 - - 4,806,102
8322071-CC30004-3014-PRG10042 Granary Dist. Flood Plain Mit 2,000,000 - - 2,000,000
8323640-CC11009-3032-PRG10042 600/700 N UDOT AT 2,400,000 - - 2,400,000
FY25B3D9-3032-TTIF Bicycle Lanes Capital Hill 406,102 - - 406,102
CIP Appropriations as of 4/30/25 Budget Encumbrances Expenditures Budgetary Balance
CIP RECAPTURE GRAND TOTALS 7,424,213 26,013 4,484,963 2,913,237
8316044-CC11009-3000-PRG10042 Pedestrian Safety Improvements 1,621 - - 1,621
8316047-CC11009-3000-PRG10042 Pioneer Park Improvements, 350 1,014 - - 1,014
8316074-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Jordan River Trail Bridge 3,961 - - 3,961
8317024-CC30005-3000-PRG10042 Sorenson Multicultural Center 24,262 - 12,371 11,890
8317043-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Parks and Public Lands Compreh 7,343 - - 7,343
8318028-CC30004-3000-PRG10043 Bridge Maintenance 76,504 - 4,723 71,780
8318049-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Jordan R. Flood Control 9,870 - - 9,870
8319085-CC10504-3000-PRG10036 Cost overrun 16,800 - 14,690 2,110
8319301-CC30005-3000-PRG10042 Delong & Parks Yard Improvement 28,727 - 9,811 18,916
8319401-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Glendale Park Playground Path 43,476 - - 43,476
8319403-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 RAC Shade Structure and Playgr 3,406 - - 3,406
8319406-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 11th Ave Pavilion and Signage 47,079 - 13,677 33,402
8320407-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Three Creeks Con Phase III 492,800 - - 492,800
8320602-CC11009-3000-PRG10030 Bus Stop Signal Enhancements 500,001 (1) 217,030 282,971
8322051-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrd 66,167 - 11,237 54,930
8322052-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Single Fam Fire Behavior Prop 12,521 - - 12,521
8322401-CC30004-3000-PRG10042 Tracy Aviary FY22 35,408 - 28,698 6,710
8323422-CC30005-3000-PRG10042 Dee Glen Tennis Court Reconstr 500,000 25,414 246,761 227,825
8323802-CC11002-3000-PRG10042 RealPropertyPurchase#2 FY23 3,767,564 - 3,742,543 25,021
8619409-CC35001-3000-PRG10042 Fairmont Stream Access Beautiful 17,600 600 7,212 9,788
8619602-CC35001-3000-PRG10043 Bridge Maintenance 150,000 - - 150,000
8619622-CC10504-3000-PRG10042 Trans Master Plan 49,840 - 33,574 16,266
8619624-CC11009-3000-PRG10042 1700 S Lane Reconfiguration 53,076 - - 53,076
8620608-CC11009-3000-PRG10028 Sugarhouse 600 E Traffic Calmi 149,068 - 142,635 6,433
8620621-CC11009-3000-PRG10043 Bridge Maintenance 250,000 - - 250,000
8621601-CC11009-3000-PRG10043 Bridge Maintenance FY21 300,000 - - 300,000
8622103-CC11009-3000-PRG10043 Bridge Preservation FY22 300,000 - - 300,000
8314094-CC30005-3004-PRG10042 West Salt Lake Master Plan Imp 14,905 - - 14,905
8316079-CC11009-3004-PRG10042 University Bikeway 1,201 - - 1,201
8323644-CC30004-3014-PRG10042 Additional ARPA Revenue Replacement -
Odyssey House 500,000 - - 500,000
CIP GRAND TOTALS WITH RECAPTURE 358,792,619 52,178,756 79,708,948 226,904,915
Capital Asset Plan (CAP) Council Requests from January 2019
1.Policy Goals and Metrics – Council Members requested high-level cost estimates for the City
to implement the below policy goals as well as any metrics. The Administration was invited to
recommend policy goals to the Council. Three cost estimates are included based on prior
discussions but may not represent the best currently available information. The table is intended
for discussion purposes and does not represent a comprehensive list of policy goals for Council
consideration.
Bring all facilities out of
deferred maintenance
Appropriations vs. funding
need identified in Public
Services’ Facilities Dashboard
that tracks each asset
$6.8 million
annually or $68
million over ten
years
Expand the City's urban trail
network with an emphasis on
East-West connections
Total paved/unpaved network
miles; number and funding
for improved trail features;
percentage of 9-Line
completed
$21 million for 9-
Line
implementation
Increase the overall condition
index of the City's street
network from poor to fair
Overall Condition Index
(OCI); pavement condition
survey every five years
$133 million cost
estimate (in addition
to existing funding
level)
Implement the Foothill Trails
Master Plan
Distance of improved trails
completed; number and
funding for improved
trailheads
$TBD
Advance the City's
sustainability goals through
building energy efficiency
upgrades
Energy savings; carbon
emission reductions $TBD
Focus on renewal and
maintenance projects over
creating new assets
Number, funding level and
ratio of renewed assets vs.
new assets
$TBD
2.Project Location Mapping – Council Members requested a map of all CAP projects. The idea
of multiple maps based on dollar value was discussed such as $50,000 - $999,999, $1 million - $5
million, and over $5 million.
3.Measure CAP to CIP Alignment – Council Members expressed support for annually
measuring the alignment of how many CIP Funding Log projects were previously listed in the
CAP and how many CIP projects receiving appropriations were previously listed in the CAP. A
high alignment would indicate the CAP is successfully identifying the City’s capital needs.
4.Council Adoption of CAP – The question arose if the Council should adopt the CAP each year
with the annual budget or potentially in the summer when reviewing project specific funding.
Does the Administration have a preference?
CIP COUNCIL Briefing Questions:
Please add responses in red text.
JULY 1 CIP BRIEFING COUNCIL QUESTIONS:
Project 2: Vision Zero Corridors & Safety Improvements Citywide 2026
Transportation Division
- Are there any delays or additional processes we need to go through related to the
new legislation? How does the Administration plan to work through this? Will
legislation impact the timing of implementation?
o The three primary corridors that will be targeted with this funding are
Redwood Road, 900 West, and 800 South. SB-195 requires that the City
conduct a study to get approval for “highway reduction strategy” (safety,
multimodal) projects on collectors and arterials east of I-15. The
Transportation Division has already begun work on this process and is
working closely with UDOT. Because Redwood Road and 900 West are west
of I-15, they are exempt from SB-195. Redwood Road is owned by UDOT, and
we have already been collaborating with UDOT on potential safety
enhancements on that facility. We will need approval from UDOT to invest in
800 South east of I-15, which we hope will happen this fall.
Project 3: Safe, Open and Clean Park Restrooms
Public Lands Department
- Because of some urgent issues in Fairmont Park, the Council would like a clearer
understanding of the funding sources and the schedule to complete these items.
The restroom improvements are the highest priority for the community at Fairmont
Park. Can you provide a list of different Fairmont Park maintenance and
improvement items and a timeframe for completing each item? Is it possible to
bring the Fairmont restrooms to the front of the schedule and make it happen as
soon as possible?
Ongoing, funded projects at Fairmont Park:
• North End Beautification ($5 million–GO Bond): The north end of Fairmont
Park will be revitalized in conjunction with community and stakeholder
involvement to create an inviting and aesthetically pleasing entrance to the park.
Of the $5 million project budget, $500,000 is currently available, from the 1st
Tranche of the GO Bond (issued October 2023), for planning, community
engagement, and design. Construction funding is not currently available.
• Safety Enhancements ($1.5 million–GO Bond): Ensuring the well-being of all
park-goers is a top priority. This project, in concert with the above, was created
following Council’s decision to change the “Reimagine Neighborhood Parks”
project for Council District 7 from the completion of the McClelland Trail to
Fairmont Park safety improvements (meeting agenda, motion sheet and
recording can be found here:
https://slc.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=3330). Of the $1.5
million project budget, $150,000 is currently available, from the 1st Tranche of
the GO Bond (issued October 2023), for planning, community engagement, and
design. Construction funding is not currently available.
• Full-Court Basketball Upgrade ($754,000 –FY24/25 CIP): Responding to
community interest, the current half-court basketball area will be expanded and
potentially relocated into a full-court facility.
• Public Art (Up to $140,000 – FY24/25 CIP 1.5 Percent-for-Art): The Salt
Lake City Arts Council’s Art Design Board has recommended the allocation of
funding for a public art commission at Fairmont Park, which will be managed by
the Salt Lake City Arts Council. This project will be integrated into the park’s
overall improvements (three bullets above) and extend into McClelland Street.
Phase one of public engagement for the consolidated Fairmont Park project was
completed in March 2025. As of June 23, 2025, we have a confirmation from the
Boys and Girls Club that they wish to remain in their existing building, with an
amended or new lease to be worked out in 2025 or 2026. Design is now underway
and will be ready to share with the public this fall. Construction is anticipated to
begin in 2027, pending the approval and availability of construction funds that are
currently planned to be included in the 3rd Tranche of the GO Bond by fall 2026.
During design, the project team will explore the possibility of “safety enhancements”
meaning the potential consolidation of structures, including restrooms, the park
ranger station, and potentially maintenance buildings. Currently, the park is over-
saturated with restroom facilities (three) based on its size and use.
It is the department’s preference and long-standing intent to complete all of the
above projects at once, with construction beginning in 2027. Though we investigated
how to potentially expedite “safety enhancements” sooner, in 2026, the benefits of
continue to consolidate the projects are several fold. This plan will lead to budget
and project delivery efficiencies, allow for the design of the full park to be considered
holistically, and ensure park closures for construction are minimized. Because of this,
it is the department’s preference to bring the Fairmont restrooms online at the same
time as the rest of the improvements within the park and informed by the citywide
restroom study. Having said this, we plan to discuss opportunities to prioritize
improvements related to safety with Council members and staff in the coming weeks.
- Is there an overlap between the previously awarded Fairmont Park bathroom funds
and this CIP project? Please describe.
The scope of the funded “Citywide Park Restroom Planning Study” (a constituent CIP
application approved in August 2024 for FY 24-25) includes conceptual design for one
restroom at Fairmont Park. This funding will be used to complete the schematic (or
40%) design for replacement of that restroom but does not include funding for
construction document development or construction. The current request for this
year (Project 3: Safe, Open and Clean Park Restrooms) would fund the completion of
construction document development and then the construction of that design.
- What is the status of the bathroom study, when will it be ready?
The Public Lands Department was initially received $100,000 in funding from a
constituent CIP application in FY 24-25 for the “Citywide Park Restroom Planning
Study”, the scope of which included a planning study to update citywide park
restroom policy and practices, conceptual design standards for park restrooms based
on context, and conceptual designs for a restroom replacement at Fairmont Park.
In addition, Public Lands submitted a request for additional funding to expand the
scope of this project in FY 24-25's Budget Amendment 5 in order to perform
additional analysis requested by the City Council on June 4, 2024. This additional
funding of $75,000 will expand the scope and budget (to $175,000 total) to include a
full citywide restroom assessment rather than strictly for park restrooms. Upon this
funding being approved in May 2025, Public Lands has assigned this project to the
Planning and Design Division, and the scope of work is being finalize d. A public
“request for qualifications” (RFQ) will be posted by the end of 2025 to procure a
qualified consultant to complete a portion of this work (primarily the design work,
policies, and guidelines). Much of the level of service and contextual analysi s will be
performed in-house by Public Lands Planners. The design and planning efforts are
anticipated to conclude by Summer 2026 and, again, inform the restroom design(s)
for Fairmont Park.
- If funded as recommended by the mayor, which bathrooms will be completed?
o If uncertain which bathrooms will be repaired due to funding, please share a
holistic list of Public Lands restrooms and the order in which they will be
repaired.
If fully funded ($2,052,000), up to three restrooms will be able to be fully replaced.
However, there are several ongoing, funded projects that are occurring at a few of the
proposed park locations (Fairmont GO Bond, Liberty Park Vision Plan, Cottonwood Pa rk
GO Bond). If funding is able to be leveraged with other projects, or construction costs
can be reduced by coupling projects, we may be able to accomplish more work. Each
restroom is anticipated to cost approximately $684,000.
The park locations, in order of priority are:
• Fairmont Park, northeast restroom
• Liberty Park, near the new Rotary Play Park
• Riverside Park, near 600 North
• Cottonwood Park (if funding allows)
• Jordan Park, near the skatepark (if funding allows)
• Herman Franks Park, both are in need of replacement (if funding allows)
Project 4: Parks' Legal Compliance with 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design
Public Lands Department
- Please provide details on which of these projects will be funded.
The Mayor’s Recommended Budget includes funding $2,684,929 of the $3,730,000 total
request. The 10 parks in the application were selected based on recommendations from the
2024 Salt Lake City ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan. At least one park in each City
Council District is included in these 10.
This application seeks to remove the most three critical types of architectural barriers at
parks: (1) arrival points, (2) playgrounds, and (3) walkways. By so doing, the City will be
expanding parks' capacity to serve a wider range of users, including adults and children with
disabilities and aging adults, ensuring more inclusive access for all people. Per the CIP
application, if partially-funded, Public Lands recommends fully funding the required
improvements at fewer parks, rather than partially funding all 10 parks.
Parks were prioritized based on severity of access issues and efficiencies with other ongoing
projects in order to maximize the impact. The individual projects within these 10 parks that
would be completed with full funding can be found in the CIP applicat ion.
SUMMARY:
• Riverside Park (District 1) $578,000
• Sorensen Multicultural Center (District 2) $132,800
• Jordan Park (District 2) $238,200
• 11th Avenue Park (District 3) $548,500
• Lindsey Gardens Park (District 3) $670,000
• Victory Park (District 4) $279,500
• Ballpark Playground (District 5) $130,000
• Wasatch Hollow Park (District 6) $139,000
• Parley’s Way Park (District 7) $546,000
• Parleys Historic Nature Park (NA) $468,000
PROJECT BREAKDOWN: The full project breakdown is included in the “supporting
documents” section of the CIP application titled “ADA Application - Park, Issue Severity,
Enhances Existing, and Impact-Visitation, and Cost Estimates”.
Park Cost Estimate
Riverside Park
Install van-accessible parking signage on the south side of the park. $ 1,000.00
Restrooms are locked. The lavatory sink and water fountain don’t work. Consider a
reassessment. n/a
Modify the south baseball field’s team seating area to allow for a wheelchair-
accessible team seating space that doesn’t overlap the route. $ 5,000.00
Reconfigure the parking spaces to accommodate a van-accessible parking space
on the north side of the park. $ 6,000.00
Install van-accessible parking signage. $ 1,000.00
Repaint the access aisles to adjoin with the accessible route. $ 1,000.00
Install or extend the route along the soccer field on the north side of the park. $ 10,000.00
Remove the post at Sutherland baseball field's team seating area. $ 3,000.00
Reinstall a compliant play structure ramp. $ 3,000.00
Install a play structure with accessible features or adjust the play structure ramp
handrails. $ 300,000.00
Install accessible ground surfacing at the play area. $ 100,000.00
Soft Costs (contingencies, design, permits and PM fees) $ 172,000.00
Park Total $ 578,000.00
Sorensen MCC (fields/playground)
Install van-accessible parking signage. $ 1,000.00
Modify the baseball field’s team seating area to allow for a wheelchair-accessible
seating space that doesn’t overlap the route. $ 5,000.00
Install a hands-free door entry button to the baseball field and outdoor play area.
Add accessible entrance signage. $ 10,000.00
Rotate the ramp on the play structure to allow for an unobstructed transfer
platform. $ 12,000.00
Install accessible ground surfacing at the play areas. $ 75,000.00
Soft Costs (contingencies, design, permits and PM fees) $ 30,900.00
Park Total $ 132,900.00
Jordan Park
Install van-accessible parking signage. Consider dispersing ADA parking spaces. $ 1,000.00
Reconfigure or add accessible restrooms. n/a
Install proper ADA restroom signage. n/a
Adjust the restroom door hardware. n/a
Recalibrate the restroom doors. n/a
Bevel the restroom threshold. n/a
Install a side wall grab bar. n/a
Adjust the rear wall grab bar. n/a
Adjust the toilet seat height. n/a
Install insulated piping at the lavatory sink and recalibrate the faucet control. n/a
Modify the south baseball field’s team seating area to allow for a wheelchair-
accessible team seating space that doesn't overlap the route. $ 5,000.00
Add a route to the horseshoe area. n/a
Add a route to the sports court. n/a
Add an accessible ramp or bevel the bike polo threshold. Consider altering the
door hinge so that they open towards the bike polo court. $ 8,000.00
Install accessible ground surfacing at the play area on the north side of the park. $ 75,000.00
Lower the rocker ground-level play component on the east side of the park. $ 10,000.00
Add a route to at least one swing in the play area on the east side of the park. $ 20,000.00
Install accessible ground surfacing at the play area on the west side of the park. $ 75,000.00
Soft Costs (contingencies, design, permits and PM fees) $ 58,200.00
Park Total $ 238,200.00
11th Avenue Park
Reconfigure parking to accommodate for a van-accessible parking space and an
ADA parking space. $ 6,000.00
Add parking lot access aisles.
Install ADA and van-accessible parking signage. $ 1,000.00
Add a ramp along the east side of the recessed sports field near the parking lot. $ 20,000.00
Repair or replace play area rubber tiles that have gaps or have warped. n/a
Install an accessible play structure with compliant features or adjust the play
structure ramp handrails. $ 300,000.00
Install accessible ground surfacing at the play area. $ 70,000.00
Soft Costs (contingencies, design, permits and PM fees) $ 158,800.00
Park Total $ 548,800.00
Lindsey Gardens Park
Add an ADA parking space and a van-accessible parking space closest to the entry
point curb ramp. $ 15,000.00
Add parking lot access aisles. $ 5,000.00
Install ADA and van-accessible parking signage. $ 1,000.00
Regrade parking spaces to have a cross slope under 1:48 or 2.08%. $ 10,000.00
Regrade routing to under 1:20 or 5% or provide level landings. $ 75,000.00
Modify the southwest baseball field’s team seating area to allow for a wheelchair-
accessible team seating space that doesn't overlap the route. $ 5,000.00
Install a play structure with accessible features or adjust the play structure ramp
handrails. $ 300,000.00
Install accessible ground surfacing at the play area. $ 90,000.00
Soft Costs (contingencies, design, permits and PM fees) $ 200,400.00
Park Total $ 670,400.00
Victory Park
Paint parking lot lines and add an access aisle. $ 500.00
Install ADA and van-accessible parking signage. $ 5,000.00
Regrade the route ramp slopes to under 1:20 or 5%. $ 75,000.00
Install an entry point ramp at Markea Avenue. $ 75,000.00
Install accessible ground surfacing at the play area. $ 60,000.00
Soft Costs (contingencies, design, permits and PM fees) $ 64,650.00
Park Total $ 279,650.00
Ballpark Playground
Repair the entry point at the play area. $ 10,000.00
Add accessible steps of at least 14 inches in depth throughout the elevated play
structure. $ 10,000.00
Install accessible ground surfacing at the play area. $ 80,000.00
Soft Costs (contingencies, design, permits and PM fees) $ 30,000.00
Park Total $ 130,000.00
Wasatch Hollow Park
Repair parking lot potholes. n/a
Regrade ADA parking space cross slopes to under 1:48 or 2.08%. $ 75,000.00
Install ADA and van-accessible parking signage. $ 1,000.00
Replace the parallel wooden slats found between the play areas with
perpendicular slats. n/a
Install proper ADA restroom signage. n/a
Recalibrate the restroom doors. n/a
Recalibrate the toilet flush control or add a hands-free option. n/a
Install accessible ground surfacing at the play area. $ 90,000.00
Soft Costs (contingencies, design, permits and PM fees) $ 49,800.00
Park Total $ 139,800.00
Parley's Way Park
Repair the entry point asphalt along East Parleys Way. $ 10,000.00
Install a play structure with accessible features. $ 300,000.00
Install accessible ground surfacing at the play area. $ 80,000.00
Soft Costs (contingencies, design, permits and PM fees) $ 156,000.00
Park Total $ 546,000.00
Parley's Historic Nature Park
ADA Park Entrance Improvements $ 80,000.00
Erosion Mitigation $ 80,000.00
West Water Access Stabilization $ 100,000.00
East Water Access Stabilization $ 100,000.00
Soft Costs (contingencies, design, permits and PM fees) $ 108,000.00
Park Total $ 468,000.00
APPLICATION TOTAL $3,731,750.00
Project 6: 700 North (2200 West to Redwood Road)
Engineering Division
-Project 6 - The $680,600 requested was not a typo. This was the full amount
requested by the Applicant. This CIP request will provide part of the local match
($1,680,600 required) in order to obtain $3,000,000 Federal funding programmed for
this project. This is correct.
Project 7: Public Way Concrete - See exhibit for additional details
Engineering Division
-Please provide the condition list from Cartograph and share what the worst areas
are that will be focused on.
o This program can cover both sidewalks and ADA ramps. A condition list for
both types of assets was emailed to Kate Werrett.
o In general, locations will be selected on a worst-first basis. However, Project
Managers will also look at areas that have a high number of issues and direct
contractors to those areas to gain econom ies of scale and stretch program
funding further.
Project 9: 20 Acres of Irrigation System
Public Lands Department
-COUNCIL STAFF: Kat said that $600,000 is the minimum amount of useful funding
for this project.
-PUBLIC LANDS: This statement serves as a confirmation that the above sentence is
accurate. In addition, more precise locations will be determined based on (1) Parks
Division priorities and (2) existing irrigation systems’ OCI (overall condition index),
based on the FY 25/26 funding allocated.
Project 12: Facilities Replacement & Renewal - See exhibit for additional details
Facilities Division
-Public Services provided the list of projects associated with this.
Project 15: Missing Sidewalks & Bikeway Network Gaps 2026
Transportation Division
-When departments have similar requests, can the Administration provide details on
how the departments are working together on the related items?
o The Transportation, Engineering, and Streets Divisions collaborate closely on
every project. For sidewalks in particular, Streets leads on replacing broken
sidewalk and Transportation leads on identifying gaps. Engineering does the
design and construction management for new sidewalks and ensures ADA
compliance.
-What areas will this focus on? Is the Upper Avenues near Ensign Elementary on the
list?
o For bikeways, this effort will focus on gaps in the existing network relative to
the network outlined in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. The Bicycle
Advisory Committee is assisting in the effort to identify and prioritize these
gaps. For sidewalks, we plan on focusing in areas of greatest need, such as
near schools. The gap on L Street near Ensign Elementary is one of those high
priority gaps.
Project 57: Civic Campus & Green Loop Implementation
Public Lands Department
-Please provide details on when impact fees will expire:
o COUNCIL STAFF: Finance has shared the following impact fee expiration
details:
▪Police - Next expiration is January 2031
▪Fire - Next expiration is January 2031
▪Parks - Next expiration is in October 2027
▪Streets - Next expiration is in December 2027
-What are the other Public Lands projects that the Park Impact Fees could be used
for if not used for the Civic Campus?
From Finance: Parks impact fees can currently be used for new park acreage and
improvements that maintain the level of service and offset the burden caused by
growth in population.
FY26 Public Lands projects that are potentially Parks Impact Fee Eligibility:
1.Safe, Open and Clean Park Restrooms - $456,000 - Eligibility is based on making 2 of
the 3 restrooms open year around. This is a 50% increase or 1/3 or the time for
growth.
2.Parks' Legal Compliance with 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design -
$1,314,000
3.Sugar House Park - 50/50 Cost Share for One Pavilion Replacement & Critical
Infrastructure Upgrades - -$102,000 – For the shade structure
4.East Central Community Council 1200 East Median Restoration Proposal (300 -400
South and 400- 500 South) (Constituent Request) - $232,470 – ADA, new trees, new
benches, pollinator garden
5.Riverside Basketball Court Renovation (Constituent request) - $85% of $490,000 is
eligible. Art is ineligible. Eligibility based on full court 6 baskets and fencing. Any
partial funding and/or scope change will alter the eligibility percentage. $40k for Art
is ineligible.
6.Event Infrastructure and Pavilion Replacements for Vibrant, Safe City Parks -
$2,597,000
7.Playground Shade (Constituent request) - $500,000
8.Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail, and Safety Improvements (Constituent
Request) - $170,000 - Irrigation and new landscaping are eligible.
9.Concord St to Alzheimer's Jordan River Cleanup (Constituent Request) - $480,000 –
The $20k for bridge study is ineligible.
10. Nature Park at Bonneville (Constituent request) - $2,765,0000
From Public Lands:
Page 13 of the “Mayor’s Recommended Capital Improvement Program Budget” for FY 25 -26
summarizes the overall recommendation to allocate a total of $8,800,000 in Parks Impact
Fees to eight Public Lands projects proposed for the FY 25-26 CIP, including $2,900,500 for
this “Civic Campus and Green Loop Implementation” application, Project 57. In short, the
recommended $2,900,500, the City’s first construction dollars allocated to the Green Loop
project, will be used as a match for philanthropic requests and grant funding.
As an update on the $3,140,000 allocated in FY 24-25:
•Construction document development for the Civic Center block of the Green Loop on
200 East is underway.
•A capital campaign feasibility study for the entire Green Loop is also currently
underway.
•The project team for the conceptual design of the 500 West segment of the Green
Loop is currently selecting a qualified design consultant team.
In addition, Public Lands believes that the following projects could potentially require
additional Parks Impact Fees in the future. Please note, the Public Lands Strategic Capital,
Acquisition and Asset Management Plan (SCAAMP) is in development and will make more
accurate projections of our level of service and project needs, particularly those eligible for
and requiring Impact Fees. This plan is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2025.
Disclaimer: Parks Impact Fee eligibility for all of these improvements has yet to be
determined.
•Glendale Park (Phases 2+) (design in 2025, construction 2026-2028): $3M to $5 M
more (excluding outdoor pool costs)
•Fleet Block (design in 2025-2026, construction 2027-2029): $3M to $5M more
•Allen Park (Phases 2+) (design in 2025): minimum of $4M to $6M more
Please note, the full build-out cost for Allen Park is estimated at $30-$50
million in the Adaptive Reuse and Management Plan. Parks Impact Fee
eligibility for all of these improvements has yet to be determined.
•Cottonwood Park (design in 2025): $2M to $4M more
•Gateway Triangle Park: up to $1M more
•Green Loop (before 2034): Total cost $300M to $350M more (parks portion approx
30% of total cost)
•Additional Jordan River Corridor projects (before 2030): up to $10M
•Property acquisition based on SCAAMP: $5M (before 2027), $20M to $50M (before
2040)
•Regional Athletic Complex (6-8 more fields, full buildout): up to $18M more
Public Lands would also like to make one correction from the July 1, 2025, City Council Work
Session regarding Glendale Park. At one point, it was mentioned that Glendale Park
completion would cost $60 million, per the adopted master plan. However, with the
currently allocated GO Bond and impact fee funding, the park’s full buildout may only
require an estimated additional $3-5 million for the completion of Phases 1 and 2.
JULY 8 CIP BRIEFING COUNCIL QUESTIONS:
Project 18: GREENbike Federal Grant Match 2026; Bike Rack Replacements 2026
Transportation
•Where are the bike racks that will be replaced? Is there potential to overlap these
replacements with other applicable CIP applications?
Bike rack replacements are citywide with specific locations to be identified. Salt
Lake City has had a bike rack installation program for over 20 years, installing racks
primarily in the downtown and Sugar House business districts, but also by business
request citywide. The bike corral program is also citywide. Based on sample field
comparisons between existing bike racks compared to the database of original rack
locations, approximately 15-20% of bike racks installed have gone missing, primarily
due to being hit by motor vehicles. Some of these requests are for big trip
generators like Urban Lounge and could use 5–10 racks on a large pad. Others are
simpler, like a single U rack on a concrete pier.
In the 15 years of the bike corral program, nearly all of the original 20 bike corrals
have also been damaged and need to be replaced. There are 2 constituent requests
related to bike parking, neither of which are replacement bike racks. The Milk Block
Bike SPA (Secure Parking Area) concept as proposed by the constituent is an
exemplary bicycle parking accommodation in keeping with the Milk Block’s location
along the well-used 9-Line Trail. If a Bike SPA were desired to be added to Project 18,
a significant increase in this funding amount would be needed. Otherwise, t he Milk
Block could possibly receive 3-4 new basic inverted U racks if this application
receives full funding. There are 43 additional outstanding requests for new bike
parking – these are either from businesses or customers. The combination of
replacements, replacement corrals, and the already-received new rack requests
would more than expend the requested funding. Realistically, we could repair and
install hundreds of racks if we had the resources. The intersection daylighting /
bicycle parking constituent request could be added to this project with significant
additional funding per that project’s proposed budget. The daylighting concept is
beyond the scope of this current request.
GREENbike match and bicycle racks are anticipated to be an ongoing funding need
as part of the city’s CIP program.
Project 19: Livable Streets Program 2026 - See exhibit for additional details
Transportation
•Can you share a map/location of what the next areas to be completed are?
o Sent to Kate Werrett on 07/14
•Is the area included in Project #41 within one of your zones? If yes, do you have an
estimate on when that zone will be completed?
o In regards to Project #41 (Glendale Traffic Calming), it spans two Livable
Streets zones, 12 and 49. Please note the Council has given us direction to
complete the first 25 zones in ranked priority order. After that, the Council
has mentioned that they want to discuss how to prioritize/order the
remaining zones. Our current estimate is that we will complete the first 25
zones by sometime in 2028 or 2029. Zone 12 will be constructed in 2026 and
the Zone 49 would be sometime between 2032 and 2047, depending on
funding levels.
o Project #41 elements included within Zone 12:
▪Neighborhood Byway signage on Emery St between Indiana Ave and
California Ave
▪Neighborhood Byway signage on Navajo St between Indiana Ave and
Illinois Ave
▪Note that the Livable Streets Zone 12 project does not include
installing byway signage on Indiana Ave or Navajo St. However, as part
of the zone project, there are five speed humps proposed on Emery St
between Indiana Ave and California Ave, and five humps proposed on
Navajo St between Indiana Ave and Illinois Ave.
o Project #41 elements included within Zone 49:
▪Seven speed humps on 800 W between 900 S and 1300 S
▪Emery/California intersection improvements with upgraded bike lane
paint and detection
▪Raised crosswalks at Freemont/800 W and Remington Way/800 W
near school bus stops
▪RRFBs at 800 W 900 S with Pedestrian Refuge Island
▪In a future phase: chicanes, traffic circles or additional pedestrian
improvements on 800 W
o California Avenue is a city arterial street. Emery at California borders
multiple zones and would typically be considered by a program such as
Vision Zero or Neighborhood Byways, rather than Livable Streets.
•Please define the difference between livable streets, complete streets, and vision
zero
o Livable Streets: traffic calming program
▪City has been split up into 113 zones and the completion of these
improvements are considered holistically on a zone-by-zone basis
▪Focuses on local streets
▪The zone approach helps to mitigate possible diversion from one local
street to another
o Complete Streets: funded with street reconstruction & street overlay
▪The name of a 2010 city ordinance which requires all Salt Lake City
street reconstruction projects to include state-of-the-practice bicycle
and pedestrian facilities in keeping with U.S. design manuals.
▪In the past, some reconstruction projects were funded without
sufficient funding for needed Complete Streets elements,
supplemental funds were requested.
▪No longer its own category
▪Sidewalk to sidewalk improvements – multi-modal concept
o Vision Zero Corridors:
▪This program seeks targeted funds to focus on corridors with a
significant crash history, and with characteristics that can be made
safer with infrastructure investments.
▪Focuses on major streets and crossings of major streets
Project 20: 1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk and Repave Street
Engineering
•Has the department considered consolidating curb replacements into an annual
maintenance item?
o Curb replacements may be done as part of the Public Way Concrete Program
which is setup to be used for sidewalks, curb & gutter, ADA ramps, et c...
However, this section of 1200 East does not have curb & gutter currently so
the project would install new curb & gutter.
o Generally, like projects are bundled for purposes of design, bid, and
construction.
Project 23: Playground Replacements
Public Lands
•Please add Curtis Park to the list of playgrounds that will be considered for
playground replacement.
We have noted this request and will consider the replacement of Curtis Park’s playground in
our analysis of playground conditions and replacement needs citywide.
•Please provide a Cartegraph report with the status of the park maintenance (for
parks included on the list).
Council staff corrected their original question after July 15, 2025, and asked Public Lands to
answer the below, additional question from July 15.
•ADDITIONAL QUESTION (7/15): If possible, please provide a Cartegraph report of
the playground equipment status at the parks included in Project 23.
Please see below for the Cartegraph Overall Condition Indices (OCI) for each playground
that is listed in this application for potential replacement, including Curtis Park (highlighted),
per the Council’s above question. OCIs are out of 100 possible points, and the lower the
score, the worse the condition of the asset. Please note, OCI data from Cartegraph is
currently being updated for accuracy with the Public Lands SCAAMP. The decision to select
these playgrounds for replacement in this application (except Curtis Park) was based not
only on OCI, but also on inspections, ground truthing by Parks Division staff, the ages of
assets, and the need for investment in these parks.
Asset Location Estimated OCI Installation
VICTORY PARK 57.5 6/1/1990
6TH EAST PARK 25.7 4/1/1999
PUGSLEY OURAY PARK 27.14 4/1/1999
11TH AVENUE PARK 84.43 4/1/2004
DAVIS PARK 90.5 4/1/2004
RIVERSIDE PARK 86.25 4/1/2009
PARLEYS WAY PARK 87.07 4/1/2009
CURTIS PARK 88.29 4/1/2009
PARLEYS WAY PARK 78.09 4/1/2011
Project 25: East Central Community Council 1200 East Median Restoration Proposal
(300-400 South & 400- 500 South)
Public Lands
•Why was this project not recommended for funding when CIP project #20 was?
•What can the applicant do to score higher on this project? They have applied for
several years. Is it possible to itemize different elements of the project and
associated costs to allow for partial funding for the first few phases?
Please consult the CDCIP Board Meeting minutes for their rationale on why this constituent
CIP application was not recommended by them to the Mayor for $954,720, or less, in CIP
funding:
https://webdme.slcgov.com/BoardsCommissions/Browse.aspx?id=7038646&dbid=0&repo
=SLC.
As for assistance in improving their applications, Public Lands typically refers constituent
applicants to the Finance Department’s Capital Asset Planning Team, which oversees the CIP
process, and to consider the feedback their applications received from the CDCIP Board and
the City Council.
• ADDITIONAL QUESTION (7/15): Can you break this project into smaller
pieces/phases and provide a cost estimate for each phase? The Council is leaning
towards funding at least the curb portion this year, possibly the irrigation and turf as
well. They would like to know the cost for these elements broken out individually.
Public Lands staff worked extensively with the constituent applicants to develop cost
estimates for all of the elements of their proposed scope ($954,720) as well as a partial
funding/first phase alternative ($598,784). These can be found in application’s “Budget
Narrative” section and its attachments, entitled “1200 East Medians Cost Estimates
(Complete and Partial Funding Scenarios) - Prepared by Public Lands, 12-19-2024" and
“Constituent CIP Staff Comments (1200 East Medians, provided by Tom Millar, 12 -19-
2024)”. See table below for a summary of a potential partially-funded, phased first
approach.
Project Scope Elements Partial Scope Funding Notes
Other demolition, erosion control, tree
protection, TTC, earthwork, mobilization
$ 50,000
Remove curb, 8" curb, no gutter, 2' asphalt tie -in
(4 islands, 700 LF each)
$ 210,000
Irrigation system replacement + tree specific
watering
$ 150,000
Sod removal, 1" new top soil, and at least 50%
new sod for 4 islands
$ 45,000 Partial sod replacement
Trees (x56 new) $ 8,000 20 trees only
New median island noses/extensions + ADA
access/crosswalks (x3) + pollinator gardens
No median island extensions,
new crosswalks, or
pollinators in them
Benches (x16) $ 4,800
Public Art No art
Soft Costs (PM, design + construction
contingencies, design, two yrs inflation)
$ 130,984
TOTAL $ 598,784
In addition, during the February 24, 2025, CDCIP Board meeting, board member Joseph
Murphy asked about options for partially funding the application’s $954,720 in proposed
scope (starting at the 1:14:40 timestamp and ending around 1:28:00 on the recording
(https://webdme.slcgov.com/BoardsCommissions/Browse.aspx?id=7038646&dbid=0&repo=
SLC). That exchange, including the following questions and answers between Mr. Murphy
and one the constituent applicants/presenter, Mr. Quigley, clarify the constituent’s intent, if
the application is to be partially funded.
Note: The below transcript also includes a clarifying question from Mr. Millar, representing
the Public Lands Department, and confirmation from Mr. Murphy that the CDCIP Board did in
fact have in their possession the complete CIP application submitted in D ecember 2024
($954,720) and not the original, draft by the constituent from September 2024 ($500,000):
Mr. Murphy: “While there are multiple line items for improvement, which would you say are
the most important, if we would recommend partial funding?”
Mr. Quigley: “We ultimately did identify a priority list, or a partial scope of what we’d like to
see. Ultimately, the baseline of curb, gutter, tree replacement, irrigation is the highest
priority. As far as reducing this to a partial scope, if these plans [the City’s Urban Forestry
Division] can likely provide these trees at no cost, that’s a $22,000 reduction. Even in the
full scope, we don’t believe a full turf replacement is necessary. Just the partial turf
replacement saves another $80,000 right there. And additionally, a partial irrigation
replacement with new valves and heads utilizing the existing network rather than a full, new
network from scratch is $100,000 reduction. Ultimately, we’d love to see the pedestrian
bulbouts and pollinator pockets. If those end up being too expensive, we’d like to see
baseline critical infrastructure get built now and then hopefully, down the road, we can
identify funding mechanisms for planting, or internal East Central Community Council
volunteer community event to help plant these native plants with one of our local native
plant and garden groups. Ultimately, if possible, get critical infrastructure in now and then
identify superfluous or additional things that could be funded later.
Mr. Millar: “I’m looking at the application that I have. I just want to confirm with the board,
in your applications and in your packets for this application, do you have the budget
breakdown? Does it say anything, because mine [the one he had downloaded prior to the
meeting from the Finance Department’s SharePoint drive and not the one he had helped
prepare with the constituent before the December 2024 deadline] says zero dollars?”
Mr. Murphy: “Ours says $954,000.”
Mr. Millar: “Okay, I must have the wrong one then. Great. I’m glad that you have the right
one.”
Mr. Murphy: “We can see the budget [breakdown] online. Thanks.”
Link to February 24th meeting minutes (for project #25 – East Central Community Council
1200 East Median Restoration Proposal (300 -400 South and 400-500 South):
https://webdme.slcgov.com/BoardsCommissions/DocView.aspx?id=7263057&dbid=0&re
po=SLC
Link to February 19th meeting minutes (for project #20 – 1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk and
Repave Street):
https://webdme.slcgov.com/BoardsCommissions/DocView.aspx?id=7238059&dbid=0&re
po=SLC
Note that projects #25 (District 4) and #20 (District 7) are both for segments of 1200 East,
but not near each other
Project 51: Nature Park at Bonneville
Public Lands
• Could we use the $140,000 recommended by the mayor to clean up the area
without purchasing it?
Funding the “Nature Park at Bonneville” constituent CIP application was not recommended
by the Mayor for funding in her FY 25-26 budget.
Impact fees cannot be used for maintenance or operational costs like cleaning.
General Questions for Departmental Applications :
All departments & divisions
• Please confirm which of your departmental projects that have received a mayoral
funding recommendation are for studies, design work, and construction/work
completion. Can you share which projects have been studied or designed already?
Application question #27 asks about project phase (Pre-planning/Study, Design,
Construction, Design-Build)
• The Council would appreciate feedback on why some studies or designs are being
proposed/funded instead of putting funding towards projects that are “shovel -
ready”.
PUBLIC LANDS DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSES TO THE TWO GENERAL QUESTIONS:
Recommended Project FY 25-26 Type Previous Design or Study
Safe, Open and Clean Park Restrooms Construction
Citywide Park Restroom
Planning Study (FY 24 -25)
Parks' Legal Compliance with 2010 ADA
Standards for Accessible Design Construction
Salt Lake City ADA Self-
Evaluation and Transition Plan
(2024)
20 Acres of Irrigation System Replacements
and Supportive Waterwise Landscaping Construction NA
Sugar House Park 50/50 Cost Share for One
Pavilion Replacement and Critical
Infrastructure Upgrades Construction
Pavilion designs based on
previous SLCo standard
utilized for three replacements
thus far
Jordan Park Skate Park Expansion Design
Constituent Led Jordan
Skatepark Expansion Vision
Study (2024)
Three Sportcourt Replacements Construction NA
Playground Replacements Construction NA
Riverside Basketball Court Renovation Construction NA
Event Infrastructure and Pavilion
Replacements Construction NA
Rose Park Beautification, Trail, and Safety
Improvements Study, Construction NA
Concord St. to Alzheimer's Jordan River
Cleanup Construction NA
Civic Campus and Green Loop
Implementation Construction
Green Loop Vision Plan and
Design (2023-2024)
It should also be noted that the following four Public Lands Department planning/study
efforts are currently funded (from previous FYs) and either underway or about to be: (1)
Citywide Park Restroom Planning Study; (2) Liberty Park CLR and Vision Plan; (3) Memory
Grove Park CLR and Preservation & Maintenance Plan; and (4) Strategic Capital, Acquisition,
and Asset Management Plan (SCAAMP).
The Department of Public Lands does not make funding recommendations directly. Instead,
all proposed projects are submitted through the CIP process, where they are reviewed and
prioritized by the CAP Committee and the constituent CDCIP Advisory Board.
Recommendations are then forwarded to the Mayor for consideration in her budget, and
ultimately to the City Council for their deliberation and final approval.
In some cases, studies or design efforts are prioritized because they are necessary steps to
advance projects to a “shovel-ready” stage. These early-phase efforts help the City pursue
external funding opportunities, refine project scopes, and ensure that future construction
projects are budgeted appropriately, feasible, and aligned with community needs.
Project 7: Public Way Concrete
Attachment 7, Project 7 Exhibit
SALT LAKE CITY
•Funding received for this project is used to hire a contractor to
perform:
•Slab replacement: Replacing certain small sections of
sidewalk
•Mud jacking: Material is placed under a sidewalk to raise it
to the height of the surrounding sidewalk
•Upon receipt of funding staff reviews the OCI, as well as oldest
reports of damaged sidewalk
•Funding is allocated on a worst first, first in first out
regarding constituent reports, basis
•To find economies of scale contractors after certain areas are
selected, the surrounding sidewalk issues are also addressed.
Narrative
SALT LAKE CITY
Sidewalk OCI
OCI # of
Segments
<25 212
25-40 304
40-65 3271
>65 11397
SALT LAKE CITY
Sidewalk Constituent Reports
174 Reports
SALT LAKE CITY
Sidewalk Mud Jack Candidates
990 segments
SALT LAKE CITY
Sidewalk Slab Replacement Candidates
75 segments
THANK YOU
For questions contact department
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
1
Department of Public Services - Facilities Division
facilities@slc.gov | (801) 535-7280
Attachment 7, Project 12 Exhibit
Department of Public Services -October 2023
The primary objective is to ensure that critical City
functions are supported by maintaining well-
functioning facilities, with a focus on strategic
renewal, replacement, and enhancement. While
some level of reaction to asset failures will be
necessary, it can be minimized through these
proactive measures.
$2,350,000
Recommended*Actual*
BUDGET FUNDING COMPARISION
$9,240,000
CURRENT STATE
Consistent underfunding has pushed Facilities to allocate its’ limited resources to costly emergency
projects instead of preventive maintenance, leaving a growing backlog of critical maintenance projects.
PROJECT FUNDING COMPARISON
Cost of proactivereplacement, renewal, &enhancement
Cost of responding toa failure
PLAN OBJECTIVE
TEN YEAR PLAN
Divide backlog into three equal parts to address
per year AND address 50% of the incoming
deferred assets to prevent further accumulation.
Phase 1
2024 to 2026
Phase 2
2027 to 2033
Reduce the backlog in half each year AND
address 75% of the incoming deferred assets to
maintain control over asset deferrals.
HIERARCHY OF
A HEALTHY
BUILDING
These three foundational components
are supported through strategic asset
replacement, renewal, and enhancement.
Contact Information:JPGoates,DeputyDirector|jonathan.goates@slcgov.com|801-535-6290
ANNUALLY
Using a comprehensive list of backlog and incoming deferred assets, work will be prioritized by most to
least critical, as defined by Facilities, and then further by facility criticality.
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Snapshot…Page 2
Current State…Page 4
Objectives…Page 6
Ten Year Plan…Page 10
Fiscal Year 2025-2026…Page 13
Appendix…Page 16
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
4
CURRENT STATE
Considering our current challenges, it’s crucial to maintain the funding levels outlined in
our 10-year plan to ensure we stay on track. Last year, we received funding for the first
year of this plan, which allowed us to begin addressing critical needs and reducing deferred
maintenance. However, this was the first step. To sustain this momentum and achieve the
long-term goals outlined in our plan, continued investment over the next nine years is
essential. Falling behind now would not only jeopardize our progress but also exacerbate
the challenges of underfunding, resource constraints, and a growing maintenance backlog.
Issues at Hand
Funding
BASELINE COMPARISON
• National Benchmark: IFMA recommends $2.44 per square foot for internal systems
and $0.64 per square foot for external maintenance for city governments.
o Given our three million square feet, our recommended budget should be
$9,240,000 (3 million sq. ft. * $3.08 per sq. ft.).
CURRENT CAPITAL FUNDING
• Operations Budget for Asset Replacement: $350,000.
• Capital Improvement Fund: $2.7 million received last year through the CIP approval
process.
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
5
In summary, our current funding situation is not to industry standard; we have a growing
backlog of deferred asset renewals and resource allocation must be used towards asset
failure responses.
Items of Note
In 2023, we undertook an in-depth facility condition assessment covering a significant
portion of City-owned properties to better understand our facilities’ health. This
assessment aims to provide detailed insights into component and structural asset life
expectancies, renewal and replacement cost estimates, and maintenance
recommendations, all essential for long-term planning.
Please note that all estimates in this report are preliminary and expected to change. Due to
unforeseen delays, the project timeline has extended beyond early 2024, and a small
portion of the buildings are still awaiting assessment. The project remains active, and data
will be updated as the remaining assessments are completed.
*The estimates in this report are subject to significant change with a complete facility
condition assessment. Dollar amounts will change substantially and be updated in this
format.
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
6
OBJECTIVES
Our primary objective with this capital plan is to ensure that Salt Lake City's critical
functions, including the efficient operation of government services, firefighting capabilities,
and law enforcement activities, are supported by maintaining well-functioning facilities.
This is achieved through preventive maintenance along with recommissioning assets and
strategic asset renewal, replacement, and enhancement, resulting in cost savings and
optimal operational efficiency.
RENEWAL VS. REPLACEMENT
Renewal is restoring and extending the life of an existing asset through various methods,
while replacement is necessary when a part or an asset is no longer viable.
SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT
A more in-depth replacement or enhancement improving
or modernizes an existing system to enhance its
performance, capabilities, or efficiency.
Deferred Assets
Our capital plan primarily centers around addressing our
critically deferred assets.
These are critical investments that have been postponed
and have the ability to compromise the function or use of an entire facility. It is therefore
imperative that we strategically allocate resources and efforts to ensure renewal,
replacement, or enhancement takes place as necessary.
1 Data excludes Golf Division, Property Management, and the Ballpark. Subject to change, please refer
to page 4.
ASSETS BY CATEGORY 1
Category Quantity Value
Total Assets (Priority 1-7) 5,190 $73,434,639.68
Total Critical Assets (Priority 1-3) 3,152 $35,840,468.35
Total Deferred Assets 990 $26,951,069.59
Total Assets not Assessed 1,253 Unknown
Total Critically Deferred Assets 543 $8,262,806.76
DEFINITIONS
Critically Deferred Assets
Assets that have surpassed
their anticipated useful
lifespan and are related to life
safety and human hazards, as
well as structural deterioration
and property damage.
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
7
With the implementation of Cartegraph, Facilities has effectively managed our asset
inventory and is continually updating the data. Our data analysis initiatives have pinpointed
assets that have exceeded their anticipated useful lifespan, as well as those on track to do
so within the upcoming ten years. To tackle these expired assets, we will give them priority
consideration based on two key factors.
1. Backlog: Our foremost concern is the remediation of assets that have significantly
exceeded their expected lifespan; posing immediate risk of failure. Our top priority
is to address these critical issues promptly.
2. Facility Type: Through this methodical approach, we aim to address our most
pressing concerns systematically while making judicious use of resources to
enhance the operational efficiency, safety, and comfort of our facilities.
After identifying the critically deferred assets for a fiscal year, our Facilities Team will
undertake a review and give final approval for the list. It's important to note that while
Cartegraph may flag certain items as critically deferred, such as a door, there is a possibility
that these items are still in perfectly functional condition. While automation has been
crucial, it's worth acknowledging that the individuals who possess the most intimate
knowledge of our facilities are the occupants and our maintenance technicians.
Proactive Spending
Cost Savings
By investing in the replacement or renovation of city facilities prior to failure, planned work
typically comes at a much lower cost. Over time, facilities can wear down or become
outdated. For instance, replacing an expired valve is generally less expensive than waiting
until failure that has the potential to cause extensive damage, which would require costly
repairs.
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
8
Subject to change, please refer to page 4.
This chart compares the proposed ten-year funding plan (blue) with the consequences of
maintaining the current trend of deferred assets (gray). The green columns represent the
resources allocated for addressing deferred assets, while the gray columns show the
outcome if we operate with current funding levels which primarily address current failures.
As you can see, if we don't strategically address our backlog and incoming deferred assets,
we risk quadrupling deferred over ten years. By allocating a consistent amount of funds
per year we can effectively tackle this issue. It's far more manageable to address $2 to $6
million in deferred assets annually than postponing to what would be an accumulated $40
million backlog.
By following the proposed capital plan, we anticipate saving more than $5 million over the
next decade in inflation-related costs. Moreover, these preventive measures are likely to
mitigate costly failures, that yield additional savings.
Inflation
Inflation refers to the gradual increase in the prices of goods and services over time. When
we delay facility improvement projects, we are likely to encounter higher costs in the future
due to inflation. Materials, labor, and equipment used in construction and maintenance
tend to become more expensive over time. By investing in facility upgrades now, we can
secure today's prices and avoid paying more in the future.
In summary, investing in the replacement and renewal of city facilities has significant
financial benefits. It not only prevents further deterioration and ensures better
$-
$5,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$15,000,000.00
$20,000,000.00
$25,000,000.00
$30,000,000.00
$35,000,000.00
$40,000,000.00
$45,000,000.00
$50,000,000.00
FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 FY6 FY7 FY8 FY9 FY10
CO
S
T
FISCAL YEAR
RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT -CAPITAL PROJECTION
Inaction Scenario
10 Year Plan
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
9
functionality but also takes advantage of today's lower costs while shielding budgets from
the impact of future inflation.
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
10
TEN YEAR PLAN
Renewal and Replacement
Over the next decade, our primary objective is to address our backlog of critically deferred
assets. The presence of these deferred assets poses a significant risk to our operations as
they increase our vulnerability to failures, necessitating frequent emergency repairs, which
have become increasingly prevalent. Without intervention, our deferred will experience an
increase of approximately 88% over the next ten years.
Backlog Reduction Strategy
PHASE 1: 2024-2026
Objective: Reduce the existing backlog of critically deferred assets.
• Backlog Reduction Target: Divide the current backlog of assets into three equal parts,
aiming to address an approximately consistent number of assets per year.
• Incoming Deferred Assets: Address 50% of the incoming deferred assets for the years
2024-2027 to prevent further accumulation.
PHASE 2: 2027-2033
Objective: Continue backlog reduction with a focus on reaching a more manageable
deferred asset list.
• Backlog Reduction Target: Aim to address 50% of backlogged assets every year.
• Incoming Deferred Assets: Address 75% of the incoming deferred assets for the years
2027-2033 to maintain stabilization of asset deferrals.
Monitoring and Flexibility
• Regularly monitor progress and adjust priorities as needed based on asset criticality
and resource availability.
• Stay flexible with resource allocation to address assets with varying levels of
urgency.
By following this phased approach, we aim to reduce the backlog of critically deferred
assets while effectively managing incoming deferred assets, ultimately ensuring the safety
and reliability of our facilities.
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
11
*Subject to change, please refer to page 4.
This table visually distinguishes between assets that are going to become deferred (light
blue), we are targeting to address (dark blue), and the remaining backlogged deferred
assets (purple). It also highlights the potential backlog growth (gray) if we do not act. This
visual representation emphasizes the urgency of our asset management strategy.
System Enhancement and Projects
It's important to note that some of the projects aimed at renewing or replacing assets
could potentially evolve into a system enhancement project if a particular component
requires architectural services and the cost exceeds $50,000.
We are committed to enhancing the overall functionality and safety of our facilities. This
initiative will encompass a variety of projects designed to go beyond simple component
replacements, addressing specific needs identified by our Facilities team, Safety and
Security Director, Office Facilitators, tenants, and everyday employees.
These enhancement projects will generally follow a two-phase approach:
1. Project Development: This phase involves comprehensive assessments and
planning, including building surveys, security evaluations, obtaining quotes, and
detailed design work. During this stage, we will thoroughly analyze the requirements
of each project to ensure alignment with our overarching goals.
2. Project Implementation: Once the scope of the project has been outlined, the
project moves into the implementation stage. This is where the actual construction
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 FY6 FY7 FY8 FY9 FY10
QU
A
N
T
I
T
Y
FISCAL YEAR
RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT -CAPITAL PLAN
Inaction Scenario
Incoming Deferred
Total Addressed
Remaining Backlog
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
12
and renovation work begins, translating the plans and designs into tangible
improvements to our facilities.
Our commitment to engaging a diverse group of stakeholders in identifying and executing
these projects reflects our dedication to creating a safer and more productive environment
for all. These enhancements are not only essential for the well-being of our facilities but
also for the well-being and satisfaction of our occupants and employees. Through this
holistic approach, we aim to foster a space that supports our collective growth and success.
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
13
FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026
As we enter the fiscal year 2025-2026, our Facilities team has conducted a thorough
assessment of incoming deferred maintenance and backlog. While our Cartegraph system
offers a general overview, it is our Facilities team that truly possesses an in-depth
knowledge of our facilities. Their records, on-ground expertise, and daily presence at these
locations have granted them a profound understanding of the intricacies and nuances that
may not be evident from data alone.
This analysis has provided valuable insights into the condition of our assets, enabling us to
identify the immediate priorities necessary to stay in line with our ten-year plan. In this
report, we present the recommendations that have emerged from this assessment,
focusing on practical steps for efficient resource management and sustainable growth
considering evolving challenges and opportunities.
Renewal and Replacement
Subject to change, please refer to page 4.
The list provided below is not exhaustive and should not be considered as a
comprehensive representation. It is subject to modifications, updates, and changes based
on inspection, evaluation, and prioritization. Furthermore, the estimates within this report
are preliminary and subject to significant alterations upon the completion of the ongoing
Facilities Condition Assessment. Dollar amounts and other related figures may change
substantially and will be updated accordingly within this format. Users are advised to
exercise caution and consult with relevant authorities or entities for the most current,
accurate, and finalized information.
MINOR COMPONENTS
These assets have an individual value below $50,000, but when combined, exceed $50,000
in total worth. According to the stipulations in Resolution No. 29 of 2017, these items have
also been classified as maintenance. Nevertheless, they have traditionally been funded
through capital improvement funds due to the inadequacy of the Operations budget.
Total $312,192.47
MAJOR COMPONENTS
These major assets have individual values that meet or exceed $50,000. These are larger
scale replacement tasks that meet the project definition outlined in Resolution 29.
Total $1,668,675.21
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
14
DISMISSED COMPONENTS
Certain components could be excluded from consideration for various reasons, which may
include, but are not limited to, instances where they have already been replaced and
Cartegraph was not updated to reflect this change, when assets have been inspected and
found to be in excellent working condition without a Cartegraph update, when they are
scheduled for replacement as part of another project, or when the asset is deemed
unnecessary.
Total Saved $2,141,566.93
System Enhancements
Subject to change, please refer to page 4.
Capital Improvement Projects
The projects outlined below are not a part of the replacement and renewal program and
have separate CIP applications, but they will address deferred components.
PLAZA 349
We are seeking funding for the initial two phases of a crucial project dedicated to
upgrading the charging infrastructure at Plaza 349. Situated off 200 E and University
Boulevard, the Plaza 349 complex comprises an office building and a six-level parking
garage, both served by a single existing electrical service. The proposed project involves
installing (20) new Level 2 charger ports and back feeding (4) pre-existing charging ports
within the Plaza 349 parking garage, which currently accommodates (38) fleet vehicles
according to telematics data. Following the recommendations from Kimley-Horn &
Sawatch, the initial funding will support the first two phases, including the installation of a
new utility switching cabinet and transformer strategically placed between the main
building and parking garage to facilitate the required electrical service for efficient EV
charging. This initiative aligns with our commitment to sustainable transportation and
positions our city at the forefront of accommodating the evolving needs of our expanding
EV fleet.
PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
We are seeking funding for the initial two phases of a vital project aimed at upgrading the
charging infrastructure at the Salt Lake City Public Safety Building, a central facility for the
city's police and fire departments, emergency operations center, and combined dispatch
unit. The project involves the installation of (20) new Level 2 charger ports, along with back
feeding (10) pre-existing ports within the existing two-floor garage, catering to a fleet of (50)
Attachment 7, Project 19 Exhibit
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
15
public services, police, and fire vehicles. Following the recommendations from Kimley-Horn
& Sawatch, the proposed funding will support the first two phases, which include the
installation of a new utility transformer on the east end of the property to facilitate the
required electrical service for efficient EV charging. This investment aligns with our
commitment to sustainable transportation and positions our city at the forefront of
accommodating the evolving needs of our expanding EV fleet.
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
16
APPENDIX
Critical Assets Per Facility
Subject to change, please refer to page 4.
Below, you'll find a list of critical assets scheduled for attention in the upcoming fiscal year.
Art Barn
Total $6,523.87
Asset Tag Asset Type Priority Classification
ABB-HTT-001 Heat Trace 1/1/2023 2 $6,523.87 Minor
Central Plant
Total $1,980,867.68
Asset Tag Asset Type Priority Classification
ABB-HTT-001 Heat Trace 1/1/2023 2 $6,523.87 Minor
BLR-ASC-001 Access Control System 1/1/2022 1 $6,955.64 Major
CCB-PTM-Pressure Transmitter
LEO-PTM-Pressure Transmitter
VFD
Variable Frequency
Drive Chilled Water
VFD
Variable Frequency
Drive Condenser
VFD
Variable Frequency
Drive Chilled Water
VFD
Variable Frequency
Drive Chilled Water
VFD
Variable Frequency
Drive Chilled Water
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
17
BLR-VFD-008
Variable Frequency
Drive Chilled Water
Pump 16 9/1/2014 3 Minor
CCB-CAM-
CCB-CAM-
041 Security Camera 1/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
RTD Temperature
Transmitter for Steam
CCB-CAM-
003 Security Camera 1/1/2023 2 $1,738.91 Minor
CCB-CAM-
012 Security Camera 1/1/2023 2 $1,738.91 Minor
CCB-CAM-
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
18
CCB-CAM-
019 Security Camera 1/1/2023 2 $1,738.91 Minor
CCB-CAM-
CCB-CAM-
023 Security Camera 1/1/2026 2 $1,738.91 Minor
GEF General Exhaust Fan
GEF General Exhaust Fan
CCB-AHU-
023 Air Handling Unit 1/1/2014 3 $20,876.37 Major
CCB-AHU-
027 Air Handling Unit 1/1/2014 3 $20,876.37 Major
CCB-AHU-
CCB-AHU-
032 Air Handling Unit 1/1/2014 3 $20,876.37 Major
CCB-AHU-
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
19
CCB-AHU-
039 Air Handling Unit 1/1/2014 3 $20,876.37 Major
CCB-HWP-
CCB-MOT-
020 Fan Motor 1/1/2014 3 $14,926.13 Major
CCB-WCC-
021 Chilled Water Coil 1/1/2014 3 $20,876.37 Major
CCB-FCU-
501N Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-502 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $23,485.92 Major
CCB-FCU-503 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-507 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-513 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-514 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-523 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-524 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-533 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-534 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-542 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-545 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-546 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-547 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-548 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-549 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
20
CCB-FCU-550 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-553 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
COM-CAM-
007 Camera 1/1/2023 2 $1,738.91 Minor
S07-GEF-005 Exhaust Fan 3/15/2022 1 $6,523.87 Major
S07-KEF-001 Kitchen Exhaust Fan 3/15/2022 1 $6,523.87 Major
S07-OHD-
S07-OHD-
004 Overhead Door 3/15/2022 2 $11,742.96 Minor
Fire Suppression
S13-OHD-
002 Overhead Door 12/12/2022 2 $11,742.96 Minor
Fire Suppression
GEF General Exhaust Fan
KEF Kitchen Exhaust Fan
GAF-CAM-
001 Security Camera 7/1/2021 2 $1,738.91 Minor
CTV
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
21
GAF-CAM-
CRT-SNO-
001 Snow Melting System 12/1/2025 1 $5,970.26 Major
CRT-CAM-
004 Security Camera 3/1/2026 2 $1,738.91 Minor
CRT-CAM-
008 Security Camera 3/1/2026 2 $1,738.91 Minor
CRT-CAM-
013 Security Camera 3/1/2026 2 $1,738.91 Minor
CRT-CAM-
016 Security Camera 3/1/2026 2 $1,738.91 Minor
CRT-CAM-
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
22
CRT-CAM-
LEO
RTD Temperature
Transmitter for Steam
LCO-FAS-001 Fire Alarm System 2/27/2026 1 $15,657.28 Major
Fire System Dry
LYF-CTV-001
Security Camera
Server 7/1/2021 2 $11,592.74 Major
CER
Concrete & Expansion
Joint Repairs 1/1/2022 2 $54,024.42 Major
LPS-CAM-006 Security Camera 7/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LPS-CAM-007 Security Camera 7/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LPS-CAM-008 Security Camera 7/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LPS-CAM-009 Security Camera 7/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LPS-CAM-010 Security Camera 7/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LPS-CAM-011 Security Camera 7/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LPS-CAM-012 Security Camera 7/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LPS-CAM-013 Security Camera 7/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LPS-CAM-014 Security Camera 7/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LPS-CAM-015 Security Camera 7/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LPS-CAM-016 Security Camera 7/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LIB-RTD-001
RTD Temperature
Transmitter for Steam
003 Camera 7/1/2021 2 $1,738.91 Minor
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
23
OTT-CAM-
OTT-CTV-001 Server 7/1/2021 2 $11,592.74 Major
Elevator Motor
Elevator Motor
PSB-MOT-
022 Elevator Motor 7/5/2025 3 $78,286.39 Major
Elevator Motor
Elevator Motor
TRF-FTH-001 Water Heater 1/1/2014 3 $1,304.77 Minor
City Hall
Total $1,050,360.90
Asset Tag Asset Type Priority Classification
CCB-CAM-
005 Security Camera 1/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
CCB-CAM-
024 Security Camera 1/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
CCB-CAM-
025 Security Camera 1/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
CCB-CAM-
041 Security Camera 1/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
24
RTD Temperature
Transmitter for Steam
CCB-CAM-
CCB-CAM-
007 Security Camera 1/1/2023 2 $1,738.91 Minor
CCB-CAM-
012 Security Camera 1/1/2023 2 $1,738.91 Minor
CCB-CAM-
018 Security Camera 1/1/2023 2 $1,738.91 Minor
CCB-CAM-
GEF General Exhaust Fan
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
25
CCB-GEF-003 General Exhaust Fan 1/1/2026 1 $4,566.71 Minor
CCB-AHU-
023 Air Handling Unit 1/1/2014 3 $20,876.37 Major
CCB-AHU-
CCB-AHU-
027 Air Handling Unit 1/1/2014 3 $20,876.37 Major
CCB-AHU-
032 Air Handling Unit 1/1/2014 3 $20,876.37 Major
CCB-AHU-
037 Air Handling Unit 1/1/2014 3 $20,876.37 Major
CCB-HWP-
CCB-HWP-
005 Heating Water for CCB 1/1/2014 3 $19,571.60 Minor
CCB-MOT-
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
26
CCB-WCC-
021 Chilled Water Coil 1/1/2014 3 $20,876.37 Major
CCB-WCC-
CCB-FCU-
501N Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-502 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $23,485.92 Major
CCB-FCU-503 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-507 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-513 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-514 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-523 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-524 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-533 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-534 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-542 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-545 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-546 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-547 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-548 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-549 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-550 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-551 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-552 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
CCB-FCU-553 Fan Coil Unit 3/15/2014 3 $18,266.82 Major
Compliance
Total $5,216.73
Asset Tag Asset Type Priority Classification
COM-CAM-
003 Camera 1/1/2023 2 $1,738.91 Minor
COM-CAM-
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
27
Fire Station 07
Total $69,152.98
Asset Tag Asset Type Priority Classification
S07-GEF-005 Exhaust Fan 3/15/2022 1 $6,523.87 Major
S07-KEF-001 Kitchen Exhaust Fan 3/15/2022 1 $6,523.87 Major
S07-OHD-
001 Overhead Door 3/15/2022 2 $11,742.96 Minor
S07-OHD-
002 Overhead Door 3/15/2022 2 $11,742.96 Minor
S07-OHD-
003 Overhead Door 3/15/2022 2 $11,742.96 Minor
S07-OHD-
Fire Station 10
Total $4,697.18
Asset Tag Asset Type Priority Classification
S10-FSR-001
Fire Suppression
Fire Station 13
Total $54,278.56
Asset Tag Asset Type Priority Classification
S13-OHD-
002 Overhead Door 12/12/2022 2 $11,742.96 Minor
S13-FSR-001
Fire Suppression
System in Range 12/15/2022 1 $4,697.18 Minor
S13-GEF-001 General Exhaust Fan 12/15/2022 1 $6,523.87 Minor
S13-KEF-001 Kitchen Exhaust Fan 12/15/2022 1 $6,523.87 Minor
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
28
Global Artways at Fairmont
Total $25,504.03
Asset Tag Asset Type Priority Classification
GAF-CAM-
001 Security Camera 7/1/2021 2 $1,738.91 Minor
GAF-CTV-001
Security Camera
Server 7/1/2021 2 $11,592.74 Major
GAF-CAM-
002 Security Camera 7/2/2021 2 $1,738.91 Minor
GAF-CAM-
GAF-CAM-
008 Security Camera 7/8/2021 2 $1,738.91 Minor
Justice Courts
Total $94,275.32
Asset Tag Asset Type Priority Classification
CRT-ASC-001 Access Control System 1/1/2022 1 $57,004.65 Major
CRT-SNO-
001 Snow Melting System 12/1/2025 1 $5,970.26 Minor
CRT-CAM-
001 Security Camera 3/1/2026 2 $1,738.91 Minor
CRT-CAM-
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
29
CRT-CAM-
007 Security Camera 3/1/2026 2 $1,738.91 Minor
CRT-CAM-
011 Security Camera 3/1/2026 2 $1,738.91 Minor
CRT-CAM-
015 Security Camera 3/1/2026 2 $1,738.91 Minor
Leonardo
Total $391.43
Asset Tag Asset Type Priority Classification
LEO-RTD-001
RTD Temperature
Transmitter for Steam
BTU Meter 10/15/2022 2 $391.43 Minor
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
30
Liberty Concession Building
Total $139,610.73
Asset Tag Asset Type Priority Classification
LCO-FAS-001 Fire Alarm System 2/27/2026 1 $15,657.28 Major
LCO-FSR-001
Fire System Dry
Liberty Youth and Family
Total $23,765.12
Asset Tag Asset Type Priority Classification
LYF-CAM-001 Security Camera 7/1/2021 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LYF-CAM-002 Security Camera 7/1/2021 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LYF-CAM-003 Security Camera 7/1/2021 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LYF-CAM-004 Security Camera 7/1/2021 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LYF-CAM-005 Security Camera 7/1/2021 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LYF-CAM-006 Security Camera 7/1/2021 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LYF-CAM-007 Security Camera 7/1/2021 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LYF-CTV-001
Security Camera
Server 7/1/2021 2 $11,592.74 Major
Library Parking Structure
Total $73,152.45
Asset Tag Asset Type Priority Classification
LPS-CER-001
Concrete & Expansion
Joint Repairs 1/1/2022 2 $54,024.42 Major
LPS-CAM-006 Security Camera 7/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LPS-CAM-007 Security Camera 7/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LPS-CAM-008 Security Camera 7/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LPS-CAM-009 Security Camera 7/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LPS-CAM-010 Security Camera 7/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LPS-CAM-011 Security Camera 7/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
LPS-CAM-012 Security Camera 7/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
31
LPS-CAM-014 Security Camera 7/1/2022 2 $1,738.91 Minor
Library
Total $391.43
Asset Tag Asset Type Priority Classification
LIB-RTD-001
RTD Temperature
Transmitter for Steam
Ottinger Hall
Total $26,808.80
Asset Tag Asset Type Priority Classification
OTT-CAM-
001 Camera 7/1/2021 2 $1,738.91 Minor
OTT-CAM-
002 Camera 7/1/2021 2 $1,738.91 Minor
OTT-CAM-
006 Camera 7/1/2021 2 $1,738.91 Minor
CTV
OTT-FTH-002
Domestic Water
Heater 1/1/2014 3 $1,304.77 Minor
Facilities Capital Plan |2025-2026
32
Public Safety Building
Total $391,431.96
Asset Tag Asset Type Priority Classification
PSB-MOT-
020 Elevator Motor 7/5/2025 3 $78,286.39 Major
Elevator Motor
Elevator Motor
Elevator Motor
PSB-MOT-
024 Elevator Motor 7/5/2025 3 $78,286.39 Major
Traffic Control Building
Total $1,304.77
Asset Tag Asset Type Priority Classification
TRF-FTH-001 Water Heater 1/1/2014 3 $1,304.77 Minor
County of Salt Lake, Utah Geospatial Resource Center, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph,
GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census
Bureau, USDA, USFWS
Winter/Spring 2025-2026
Spring/Summer 2026
SLC Boundary
SLC Livable Streets Upcoming Construction
Zone 7
Zone 6 Zone 14
Zone 13
Zone 9
Zone 8
Zone 5
Zone 12
Zone 15
µ
Attachment 7, Project 19 Exhibit
Budget FY 25 -26
Presented by Rachel Molinari & Mike Atkinson
CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FY26 APPLICATION MAP
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
https://tinyurl.com/CIPMapFY26
FY26 APPLICATION SUMMARY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Overview
Total # of Applications 60
# of Internal Application 24
# of Constituent Applications 36
Total # of Projects Recommended 30
Total $ Funding Requested $65,515,717
Total $ Funding Recommended $43,693,236
# of Constituent Projects Recommended 8
Total Constituent $ of Recommended $3,938,724
$0 $20,000,000 $40,000,000
Engineering
Public Lands
Public Services
Transportation
Requested Funding
2026 REQUESTS – CONSTITUENT ~$17,000,000
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$2,858,600 , 17%
$7,216,355 , 43%
$6,618,609 , 40%
Engineering Public Lands Transportation
2026 REQUESTS – INTERNAL ~$49,000,000
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
$40,000,000
$45,000,000 $10,930,600 , 23%
$3,595,436 , 7%
$10,900,000 , 22%
Engineering Public Lands Public Services Transportation
ONGOING EXPENSES ~$16.5M
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Project Total
Sales Tax Bonds $8,152,973
ESCO Debt Service $924,700
Fire Station #3 $675,575
Fire Station #14 $496,950
General Obligation Series Bond 2025 (2nd Tranche of Parks Bond)
Debt Service Projects Total $13,077,843
On
g
o
i
n
g
Crime Lab $600,000
City Leases $560,000
Facilities Maintenance $350,000
Urban Trails Maintenance (1/4 Cent)$200,000
Public Lands Maintenance $250,000
Public Lands Maintenance (FOF)$195,573
Vacant Property Maintenance $700,000
Public Services- ESCO County Steiner
- Memorial House
Other Ongoing Total $565,849
Estimated Total
2026 AVAILABLE FUNDING
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
General
Fund Class C
Parks
Impact
Fee
Streets
Impact
Fees
FOF
Street
FOF
Other
FOF
Transit
¼ Cent &
5th 5th Tax Total
Available (est.)$9,913,236 $10,500,000 $8,800,000 $3,600,000 $1,000,000 $1,100,000 $900,000 $10,600,000 $46,413,236
Recommended $9,913,236 $10,500,000 $8,800,000 $880,000 $1,000,000 $1,100,000 $900,000 $10,600,000 $43,693,236
Remaining $0 $0 $0 $2,720,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,720,000
•The remaining balance in Streets Impact Fees is the result of a limited number of eligible projects.
•Class C funding includes $6M in one-time funding from Class C fund balance revenues coming in higher than budgeted
•¼ Cent funding includes $2.5 M one-time funding from the Transportation fund balance
•5th 5th Sales Tax is $600,000 and is recommended for Street Reconstruction
MAYOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Dept/Div Council
District Application Title Recommended
Funding
Transportation CW $2,300,000
Public Lands CW $2,052,000
Public Lands CW $2,684,929
Engineering CW $4,390,676
Engineering $1,680,600
Engineering CW $750,000
Public Lands 5 $1,000,000
Public Lands CW $1,017,515
Engineering CW $1,000,000
Public Lands 7 - 50/50 Cost Share for One Pavilion Replacement & Critical $1,107,117
Public Services CW $1,980,868
Transportation CW $4,000,000
Transportation CW $1,000,000
Transportation CW $1,500,000
Engineering CW $3,500,000
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
MAYOR RECOMMENDATIONS CONT.
Dept/Div Council
District Application Title Recommended
Funding
Public Lands 2 $90,000
Transportation CW Federal Grant Match 2026; Bike Rack Replacements 2026 $ 100,000
Transportation CW $2,000,000
Engineering 7 $303,000
Transportation 7 $500,000
Public Lands CW $630,000
Public Lands CW $385,000
Transportation 4 $855,724
Public Lands 1 $530,000
Public Services 4 $1,078,807
Public Lands CW $2,597,000
Public Lands CW $500,000
Public Lands 1 $680,000
Public Lands 2 $480,000
Public Lands 4 Civic Campus and Green Loop Implementation $3,000,000
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CIP PROJECT TOTALS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
THANK YOU
For questions contact Rachel Molinari or Mike Atkinson
Approved As To Form
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date ______________________________
Sign __/s/Jaysen Oldroyd_____________
Jaysen Oldroyd
SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION
NO._________OF 2025
Adopting Capital Improvement Program Allocations for fiscal year 2025-2026.
A resolution adopting the attached Capital Improvement Program Allocations for the
fiscal year 2025-2026.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Salt Lake City Ordinance No. ____ of 2025, the Salt Lake City
Council (“City Council”) adopted a final budget for the Salt Lake City Corporation (“City”)
fiscal year 2025-2026; and
WHEREAS, the budget adopted by the City included a budget for the capital
improvement program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now wishes to formalize the appropriations for the capital
improvement program.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this resolution is to adopt the capital
improvement allocations for the City for fiscal year 2025-2026.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Capital Improvement Allocations. The capital improvement
allocations for fiscal year 2025-2026, which were included within the 2025-2026 budget, shall be
and hereby are adopted according to the specific terms and conditions set forth on Exhibit A
attached hereto.
SECTION 3. Public Inspection. The City budget officer is hereby authorized and
directed to certify and file copies of these capital improvement program allocations in the office
of said budget officer and in the office of the City Recorder, which allocations shall be available
for public inspection during regular business hours.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of _____________, 2025.
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
_______________________ _______________________________
CITY RECORDER CHAIRPERSON
City Council Presentation
August 12, 2025
SALT LAKE CITY
Why create an Action Plan?
•Roadmap to zero fatalities and serious injuries
•Be transparent and accountable to the public
•Build consensus among stakeholders
•2022 - present: UDOT and Zero Fatalities
•2023 - 2024: Wasatch Front Regional Council Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
•Requirement for recognition from the Vision Zero Network
•Support from elected officials
•Target date: 2035
•High Injury Network
•Vision Zero Task Force
SALT LAKE CITY
A Vision Zero Action Plan
identifies and prioritizes
data-driven, short term,
multi-disciplinary strategies
to end traffic fatalities and
serious injuries.
“
“
SALT LAKE CITY
Vision Zero and the Safe System Approach
SALT LAKE CITY
Schedule
THANK YOU
For feedback or questions, contact:
Jenna Simkins at Jenna.Simkins@slc.gov
SALT LAKE CITY
Additional Slides
SALT LAKE CITY
Steering Committee Representatives
•SLC Transportation
•SLC Engineering
•SLC Streets
•SLC Police Department
•SLC Prosecutor’s Office
•SLC Mayor’s Office
•Salt Lake County Health Department
•UDOT Region 2
•UDOT Traffic and Safety
•DPS, Highway Safety Office
SALT LAKE CITY
Example Action Items
SALT LAKE CITY
High Injury Network
Streets with a
greater number of
severe or deadly
crashes.
SALT LAKE CITY
Document Review
SALT LAKE CITY
CommunityEngagement
•shapeSLC website and survey
•In-person events
•Community Councils
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
06/ 24/2025
Date Sent to Council:
07/ 02/2025
From:
Department *
Community and Neighborhood
Employee Name:
Simkins, Jenna
E-mail
jenna.simkins@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
07/ 01/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
07/ 02/2025
Subject:
Safe Streets Action Plan kicko (Vision Zero)
Additional Staff Contact:
Jon Larsen, jon.larsen@slc.gov
Presenters/Staff Table
Document Type
Information Item
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
This transmittal is to provide a brieng on the deliverables and to conrm the scope of work. The City Council is encouraged to provide
feedback throughout the process.
Background/Discussion
See rst attachment for Background/Discussion
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
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 2023, Mayor Mendenhall announced the City’s commitment to
eliminating all traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2035. To achieve this goal, we must challenge the
prevailing idea that traffic deaths are inevitable. Instead, following a Safe System Approach, we
recognize humans will make mistakes, humans are vulnerable, responsibility is shared between system
designers and road users, safety is proactive, and redundancy is crucial. The Safe System Approach
focuses interventions within five categories: safe road users (promoting safe behavior and choices), safe
vehicles (technology and vehicle design), safe speeds, safe roads (roadway design), and post-crash care
emergency response after crashes happen).
The Vision Zero Network, a national organization that provides resources for and recognition of cities
working to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries, recommends the following:
Setting a clear target year for achieving zero fatalities
The Mayor committing to the target year
A Vision Zero Task Force that includes internal city leaders and external partners
A Vision Zero Action Plan that uses the Safe System Approach and includes:
o The High Injury Network (streets with a disproportionate number of deaths and injuries)
o Speed management strategies (a leading cause of death and injury)
o Community input and feedback
o Prioritized interventions based upon need and data
o Processes for ongoing accountability and evaluation
Salt Lake City is creating a Safe Streets Action Plan to fulfill the last recommendation. The Safe Streets
Action Plan will be built from previous planning efforts including the Comprehensive Safety Action Plan
completed by the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC), which identified the streets with a
disproportionate number of crashes, deaths and injuries. The Safe Streets Action Plan and the
accompanying visioning process will align with the requirements set forth by Senate Bill 195.
Plan goals:
Challenge the idea that traffic deaths and serious injuries are unavoidable.
Provide a clear roadmap with concrete actions to reach zero fatalities by 2035.
Be transparent and accountable about progress, challenges, and opportunities.
Integrate community input and feedback.
Unite stakeholders across departments and disciplines to work toward shared solutions.
Potential barriers to project completion:
Overcoming the mindset that individuals are solely responsible for traffic safety.
Opposition from those who want to prioritize driver convenience over safety.
Competing city priorities and funding for action items.
Limited budget and staff capacity for public outreach.
Timeline:
Date Milestone
May–June 2025
June–July 2025
August 2025
Sept–Oct 2025
February 2026
March 2026
June 2026
2030
The deliverables required for this stage of the process include the following:
Scope and work plan (see supporting documentation)
Project budget (see supporting documentation)
Timeline (see previous section)
Potential barriers that may impact scope, budget, or timeline (see previous section)
This transmittal is informational. No action from the City Council is required currently.
PUBLIC PROCESS: At this stage of the study, there is no statutorily required public process. Future
steps include a robust public engagement process that will follow Salt Lake City Code Chapter 21A.10.
EXHIBIT: Safe Streets Action Plan Scope of Work
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION –CONTRACT ROUTING FORM
CITY SIGNATURE AND RECORDING PROCESS
Reference Number:
Please complete your step and forward to the next step.
FINANCE – Encumber Funds
Funds are available:
OR
I certify that no encumbrance is required at this time and any future encumbrance
will be checked against available budget in Workday
Finance’s Signature: Date:
STEP 2 CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE – Final Approval
Y N
Attorney:
Attorney’s Signature: Date:
RECORDER’S OFFICE - Record
Instructions:
If this is an amendment -
provide the initial City
Agreement Number (CA
Name: Dept: Phone #:
Workday ID: May be left blank if the contract is not applicable to Workday
If the agreement/contract was initiated in CAMP – please provide the initial CAMP Contract Number and
PEID number below
PRJ-250104 FY25CIP-3000 Planning & Design for Future CIP Applications $70,000
Kimberley Brown Schmeling (Apr 24, 2025 16: 45 MDT)
Kimberley Brown Schmeling
CA-005784 SP-0014839
Vision Zero Action Plan Fehr & Peers
4 See line above for funding information.
Cameron Johnson 4
4
4
Debby Newton ENG 6224
06-2-2
04/24/2025
Cameron Johnson (Apr 28, 2025 16: 57 MDT)
Cameron Johnson 04/28/2025
This page has intentionally been left blank
1
AMENDMENT No. 2 TO TERM CONSULTANT
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SERVICES
VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 to TERM CONSULTANT TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
SERVICES; VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN (this “Amendment”) is made by and between
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Utah municipal corporation (“City”), and FEHR &
PEERS, INC., a California corporation (“Consultant”), and is effective the date it is recorded by
the Salt Lake City Recorder’s Office (the “Effective Date”).
RECITALS
A. The parties entered the agreement dated February 8, 2025, as amended by
Amendment No. 1, dated March 3, 2025 (collectively the “Original Agreement”).
B. The parties desire to amend the Original Agreement as set forth herein.
AGREEMENT
1. Additional Services. Consultant’s scope of work is hereby amended to add the
services described on Attachment A (scope of work), and Attachment B (Consultant’s detailed
scope of work), each incorporated herein by reference.
2. Fee for Additional Services. City shall pay Consultant an amount not to exceed
70,000.00 for the Additional Services.
3. Other Agreements. Except as amended herein, all other terms of the Original
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Any reference to the Agreement shall be to the
Original Agreement as amended. In the event any inconsistencies exist between the terms and
conditions of the Original Agreement and the terms and conditions of this Amendment, the
terms and conditions of this Amendment shall control. This Amendment shall be binding upon
the parties and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. The individuals who execute this
Amendment represent and warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Amendment on
behalf of the respective party. Unless otherwise provided in this Amendment, capitalized words
and phrases used herein shall have the meanings given them in the Original Agreement. This
Amendment may be executed simultaneously in any number of counterparts, each of which
when executed shall be deemed an original, and such counterparts may be delivered by
electronic delivery.
4. ETHICAL STANDARDS - REGARDING ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR
CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND FORMER CITY OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEES. Consultant represents that it has not: (1) provided an illegal gift or payoff to a
city officer or employee or former city officer or employee, or his or her relative or business
entity; (2) retained any person to solicit or secure this Amendment upon an agreement or
understanding for a commission, percentage, or brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona
2
fide employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business;
3) knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in the city’s conflict of interest
ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code; or (4) knowingly influenced, and hereby
promises that it will not knowingly influence, a city officer or employee or former city officer
or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in the city’s conflict of interest
ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code.
5. NON-APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS. City represents that funds are available
to meet all of its financial obligations under the Agreement for the City’s current fiscal year.
The City presently intends to budget funds necessary to make any payments required of it by
the Agreement for the entire term of the Agreement. However, the City has the right to
terminate the Agreement at any time after the City’s current fiscal year if the City’s legislative
body does not fund payment for services hereunder, and any such termination shall not give
rise to a claim for damages from the Consultant based upon a default by the City under the
Agreement except for services provided and received prior to the date of termination. The
City shall give the Consultant 90 days’ prior written notice of any such termination by the
City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties are signing this Amendment as of the Effective Date.
CITY:
municipal corporation
By
Mark Stephens, P.E., City Engineer
Salt Lake City Recorder’s Office
City Recorder
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
By
Cameron Johnson, Senior City Attorney
CONSULTANT:
Fehr & Peers, Inc.
By
Name: Maria Vyas
Principal
Cameron Johnson (Apr 28, 2025 16:57 MDT)
Cameron Johnson
City Recorder
RECORDED
Apr 30, 2025
This page has intentionally been left blank
ATTACHMENT A
SCOPE OF WORK
Project Name: Vision Zero Action Plan
Consultant: Fehr & Peers
Date: April 24, 2025
SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work is the development of a Vision Zero Action Plan, a set of action items to eliminate
traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2035. The scope includes:
Task 1: Project Management
Task 2: Planning Background and Develop Understanding
Task 3: Stakeholder Engagement
Task 4: Community Engagement
Task 5: Develop Prioritization
Task 6: Develop Action Plan
Task 7: Develop Performance Monitoring Dashboard
All tasks are per the detailed scope and estimate provided by Fehr & Peers, dated April 24, 2025
included with this attachment).
RESPONSIBILITIES OF CONTRACTOR
The responsibilities of Contractor include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
GENERAL
A. Contractor, if doing business under an assumed name, i.e. an individual, association,
partnership, corporation, or otherwise, shall be registered with the Utah State Division
of Corporations and Commercial Code.
B. Contractor shall assume full responsibility for damage to City property caused by
Contractor's employees or equipment as determined by designated City personnel.
C. Contractor shall be solely responsible for the safety of Contractor's employees and
others relative to Contractor's work, work procedures, material, equipment,
transportation, signage, and related activities and equipment.
D. Contractor shall possess and keep in force all licenses and permits required to perform
services under this Agreement.
ATTACHMENT A
E. No guarantee of the actual service/product requirement is implied or expressed by this
Agreement. Service requirements shall be determined by actual need.
SCHEDULE
The completion of Task 7 is expected by the end of February 2026. However, it is expected that the
consultant contract will be set for eighteen months from the initiation to provide allowances for
addressing comments from the City.
SLC VZ AP Development
Scope and Fee
April 24, 2025
Salt Lake City
Vision Zero Action Plan
Scope of Work
Purpose and Needs
On January 11, 2023, Mayor Erin Mendenhall announced the City’s commitment to
eliminate all traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2035. The City will work with Fehr &
Peers to develop an interdisciplinary Vision Zero Action Plan which builds upon current
plans, policies, and initiatives to improve safety and incorporates stakeholder and
community feedback.
Scope of Work
Efforts in support of developing Salt Lake City’s Vision Zero action will fall into six broad
categories for both City and consultant staff:
1.Overall project management including recurring meetings and ongoing
communication
2.Gathering of background information through document review, stakeholder
interviews, and core project team meetings
3.Stakeholder engagement and facilitation through one-on-one meetings, small group
discussions, and standing task force meetings
4.Community engagement through online survey, in-person attendance at scheduled
events, and develop materials for a project or program website and other outreach
activities
5.Develop prioritization process and Prioritization of programs, projects, policies, or
other actions gathered from established or adopted plans or other documents
6.Development of the action plan in draft and final form, with an emphasis on
concise, user-friendly language and acceptance by the Vision Zero Network so that
Salt Lake City is recognized as a Vision Zero City
7.Development of a performance monitoring approach to track progress against
action items/responsibilities and annual safety reporting
The project team (consisting of City and consultant staff, with individual responsibilities to
be determined by April 1, 2025) will determine an appropriate cadence of meetings with the
among the following partners:
ATTACHMENT B
SLC VZ AP Development
Scope and Fee
April 24, 2025
City staff project manager and consultant project manager
The Core Project Team, membership to be determined by the city PM
A subset of the Vision Zero task force
Given the size of task force attendees thus far and apparent lack of engagement, we
anticipate the need to reduce the task force both for regular meetings and engagement
through this process. With a refined set of taskforce members identified and a set of
framing questions, we will engage in initial stakeholder interviews with a select set of
division leads to determine what the Task Force has accomplished since its inception.
Outcomes from these interviews will be paired with a review of relevant, existing plans,
programs, and policies to establish a baseline for Salt Lake City’s Vision Zero efforts in
2025. This effectively be the starting point for the final 2025 Action Plan to be developed in
the following eight months (approximately).
Stakeholder engagement will be crucial to developing an action plan with traction,
sustaining its momentum beyond this scope of work. We anticipate two rounds of
stakeholder engagement during the core of this scope of work, led by Salt Lake City’s City
Innovation Team. Our second round of one-on-one interviews with an expanded set of
stakeholders will address what they perceive as key barriers to achieving Vision Zero in Salt
Lake City and potential strategies to overcome those barriers. This final round of
stakeholder engagement will be used to define agency responsibilities over the coming ten-
year period before the action plan is refreshed on an anticipated five-year cycle.
Community outreach will be conducted through three primary channels:
An online survey will be used to determine community priorities to achieve
improved safety outcomes for all road users in Salt Lake City, and to identify what
the community sees as key drivers of safety outcomes, and gather stories of lived
experiences regarding traffic safety outcomes in Salt Lake City
A project website and associated social media collateral to advertise the program,
its goals, and what steps the City is taking to achieve them
A series of ready-to-go outreach materials including a slide deck, program poster,
palm card (or other leave-behinds), and single-page program overview
Our intent is to use community input to determine prioritization criteria and to generally
elevate awareness of the program. Recent activity in the Utah State Legislature will place
this program under increased scrutiny, and any perceived lack of communication will not
help the City achieve its goal of eliminating traffic fatalities by 2035. The ready-to-go
materials should be used by City staff and its partners to advertise the program at any
ATTACHMENT B
SLC VZ AP Development
Scope and Fee
April 24, 2025
relevant public events to increase awareness, and the number of interactions or events will
be one of several metrics tracked in a Vision Zero reporting platform.
Prioritization criteria will fall into four categories:
Public priorities for addressing traffic safety in Salt Lake City
Political or procedural feasibility within Salt Lake City’s public sphere
Projected efficacy for strategies included in the program as measured by national
experts and research
Safety outcomes for communities of concern to align with Vision Zero Network
application criteria
The prioritization process will rank documented projects, programs, and priorities gathered
from existing documents early in the scope of this effort. These items will be prioritized
based on the criteria above and further sorted based on a near-, medium-, and long-term
horizon to result in a list of the most immediately actionable strategies that match
community needs. Medium- and long-term strategies will require ongoing effort beyond the
scope of this project.
Salt Lake City’s Vision Zero Action Plan will be approachable and user-friendly, relying on
efficient language and compelling graphics to ensure action items are clear and key
messages will stick with users. We expect to summarize outcomes in both a single
infographic and a longer-format report, with the former being incorporated into the latter.
The data presented in the comprehensive infographic is also what will be highlighted in a
performance dashboard. This dashboard will live on City platforms and will work to both
incorporate existing datasets and dashboards focusing on traffic safety and incorporate
performance against stated goals and community priorities. Performance measures in the
dashboard will be identified throughout development of the action plan and performance
measures observed in other, relevant performance dashboards from peer or exemplary
cities.
ATTACHMENT B
SLC VZ AP Development
Scope and Fee
April 24, 2025
Responsibilities by Task
Task/Subtask Responsibility
City Staff Fehr & Peers
Task 1 – Project Management
1.1 – Biweekly Meetings Lead
1.2 – Core Team Meetings Lead
1.3 – Task Force Meetings Lead
Task 2 – Planning Background and Develop Understanding
2.1 – Plan, Policy, and Program Review Lead
2.2 – Targeted Task Force Member Interviews Lead Support
Task 3 – Stakeholder Engagement
3.1 – Stakeholder Challenges & Opportunities Lead Support
3.2 – Stakeholder Responsibilities and Action Items Lead Support
Task 4 – Community Engagement
4.1 – Online Survey Lead
4.2 – Materials Development Lead
4.3 – In-Person Engagement Events Lead Support
4.4 – Website and Social Media Materials Lead Support
Task 5 – Develop Prioritization
5.1 – Summarize Projects, Programs, and Policies Lead
5.2 – Evaluate and Quantify Expected Efficacy and
Complexity Support Lead
5.3 – Draft and Final Prioritization Lead
Task 6 – Develop Action Plan
6.1 Develop Draft Action Plan Support Lead
6.2 Finalize Action Plan Lead
Task 7 – Develop Performance Monitoring Dashboard
7.1 – Select Performance Measures Lead Support
7.2 – Develop and Maintain Reporting Structure Lead Support
Budget by Task
Task F&P Staff Hours Fee
1. Project Management 26 $5,700
2. Background 52 $9,300
3. Stakeholder Engagement 28 $8,400
4. Public Engagement 70 $14,400
5. Prioritization 62 $12,600
6. Action Plan 86 $17,200
7. Reporting 14 $2,400
Total 338 $70,000
ATTACHMENT B
ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE
OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?
INSR ADDL SUBR
LTR INSD WVD
PRODUCER CONTACT
NAME:
FAXPHONE
A/C, No):(A/C, No, Ext):
E-MAIL
ADDRESS:
INSURER A :
INSURED INSURER B :
INSURER C :
INSURER D :
INSURER E :
INSURER F :
POLICY NUMBER
POLICY EFF POLICYEXPTYPEOFINSURANCE LIMITS(MM/DD/YYYY) (MM/DD/YYYY)
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
UMBRELLA LIAB
EXCESS LIAB
WORKERS COMPENSATION
AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
EACH OCCURRENCE $
DAMAGE TORENTEDCLAIMS-MADE OCCUR $
PREMISES (Ea occurrence)
MED EXP (Any one person) $
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:GENERAL AGGREGATE $
PRO-POLICY LOC PRODUCTS - COMP/OPAGGJECT
OTHER:$
COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
Ea accident)
ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY (Per person) $
OWNED SCHEDULED
BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $AUTOS ONLY AUTOS
HIRED NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE
AUTOS ONLY AUTOS ONLY (Per accident)
OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE
CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $
DED RETENTION $
PER OTH-
STATUTE ER
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $
If yes, describe under
E.L. DISEASE - POLICYLIMITDESCRIPTIONOFOPERATIONSbelow
INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC #
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
Y / N
N / A
Mandatory in NH)
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE
THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD
INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,
EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS
CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES
BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.
IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.
If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on
this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).
COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER:REVISION NUMBER:
CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION
1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.ACORD 25 (2016/03)
CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE
DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)
The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
12/6/2024
License # 0E67768
925) 249-7958
13056
Fehr & Peers
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
11000
31194
A 2,000, 000
PSB0006683 12/6/2024 12/6/2025 1,000, 000
10,000
2,000, 000
4,000, 000
4,000, 000
1,000,000A
PSA0002276 12/6/2024 12/6/2025
5,000,000A
PSE0002889 12/6/2024 12/6/2025 5,000, 000
B
57WEGZJ1989 5/1/2024 5/1/2025 1,000, 000
1,000, 000
1,000, 000
C Professional Liab.108172265 12/6/2024 Per Claim 5,000, 000
C Professional Liab.108172265 12/6/2024 12/6/2025 Aggregate 5,000, 000
All Operations of the Named Insured, including the aforementioned project, if any.
General Liability: Please see blanket Additional Insured endorsement attached; such coverage is Primary and Non-Contributory with Waiver of Subrogation
included, as required per written contract.
Auto Liability: Please see blanket Additional Insured endorsement with Waiver of Subrogation included, as required per written contract.
Workers' Compensation: Waiver of Subrogation is in favor of the aforementioned Additional Insured as per attached blanket Waiver of Subrogation
endorsement, as required per written contract.
GENERAL LIABILITY & AUTO LIABILITY INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING PERSON(S) OR ORGANIZATION(S): Salt Lake City Corporation as required per written
contract
Salt Lake City Corporation
Attn: Jerilyn Midthun
Purchasing, Contracts & Property Management
PO Box 145455
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
FEHR&PE-01 MICHAELA
IOA Insurance Services
3875 Hopyard Road
Suite 200
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Andrea Michael
Andrea.Michael@ioausa.com
RLI Insurance Company
Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America
X
12/6/2025
X
X
X
X X
X
X
APPROVED
Policy Number:RLI Insurance Company
Named Insured:
PPB 304 02 12 Page 1 of 1
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.
RLIPack®FOR PROFESSIONALS
BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:
BUSINESSOWNERS COVERAGE FORM - SECTION II – LIABILITY
1. C. WHO IS AN INSURED is amended to include as
an additional insured any person or organization that
you agree in a contract or agreement requiring
insurance to include as an additional insured on this
policy, but only with respect to liability for "bodily
injury", "property damage" or "personal and
advertising injury" caused in whole or in part by you
or those acting on your behalf:
a.In the performance of your ongoing operations;
b.In connection with premises owned by or rented
to you; or
c.In connection with “your work” and included
within the “product-completed operations
hazard”.
2.The insurance provided to the additional insured by
this endorsement is limited as follows:
a.This insurance does not apply on any basis to
any person or organization for which coverage
as an additional insured specifically is added by
another endorsement to this policy.
b.This insurance does not apply to the rendering
of or failure to render any "professional
services".
c.This endorsement does not increase any of the
limits of insurance stated in D. Liability And
Medical Expenses Limits of Insurance.
3.The following is added to SECTION III H.2. Other
Insurance – COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS
BUT APPLICABLE ONLY TO SECTION II –
LIABILITY)
However, if you specifically agree in a contract or
agreement that the insurance provided to an
additional insured under this policy must apply on a
primary basis, or a primary and non-contributory
basis, this insurance is primary to other insurance
that is available to such additional insured which
covers such additional insured as a named insured,
and we will not share with that other insurance,
provided that:
a.The "bodily injury" or "property damage" for
which coverage is sought occurs after you have
entered into that contract or agreement; or
b.The "personal and advertising injury" for which
coverage is sought arises out of an offense
committed after you have entered into that
contract or agreement.
4.The following is added to SECTION III K. 2.
Transfer of Rights of Recovery Against Others to
Us – COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS (BUT
APPLICABLE TO ONLY TO SECTION II –
LIABILITY)
We waive any rights of recovery we may have
against any person or organization because of
payments we make for "bodily injury", "property
damage" or "personal and advertising injury" arising
out of "your work" performed by you, or on your
behalf, under a contract or agreement with that
person or organization. We waive these rights only
where you have agreed to do so as part of a
contract or agreement with such person or
organization entered into by you before the "bodily
injury" or "property damage" occurs, or the "personal
and advertising injury" offense is committed.
ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS POLICY REMAIN UNCHANGED.
PSB0006683
Fehr & Peers
LIABILITY
The ollowin is added to SECTION III K. 2g
ransfer of Ri hts of Recover A ainst Others t
s – COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS BU
APPLICABLE TO ONLY TO SECTION II
1. C. WHO IS AN INSURE i m n t in l
an additional insured an erson or or anization tha
ou a ree in a contract or a reement re uirin
in r n t in l n iti n l in r n thi
or those actin on our behal
a reement that the insurance provided to a
additional insured under this olic must a l on a
basis, this insurance is rimar to other insuranc
th t i v il l t h iti n l in r whi
overs such additional insured as a named insured,
rovided that
Policy Number:RLI Insurance Company
Named Insured:
PPA 300 03 13
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.
RLIPack® BUSINESS AUTO ENHANCEMENT
SCHEDULE OF COVERAGES ADDRESSED BY THIS ENDORSEMENT
A. Broad Form Named Insured
B. Employees As Insureds
C. Blanket Additional Insured
D. Blanket Waiver Of Subrogation
E. Employee Hired Autos
F. Fellow Employee Coverage
G. Auto Loan Lease Gap Coverage
H. Glass Repair – Waiver Of Deductible
I. Personal Effects Coverage
J. Hired Auto Physical Damage Coverage
K. Hired Auto Physical Damage – Loss Of Use
L. Hired Car – Worldwide Coverage
M. Temporary Transportation Expenses
N. Amended Bodily Injury Definition – Mental Anguish
O. Airbag Coverage
P. Amended Insured Contract Definition – Railroad Easement
Q. Coverage Extensions – Audio, Visual And Data Electronic Equipment Not Designed Solely For The
Production Of Sound
R. Notice Of And Knowledge Of Occurrence
S. Unintentional Errors Or Omissions
T. Towing Coverage
PSA0002276
Fehr & Peers
C. Blanket Additional Insured
Blanket Waiver Of Subro ation
PPA 300 03 13
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:
BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM
A. Broad Form Named Insured
The following is added to the SECTION II –
COVERED AUTOS LIABILITY COVERAGE, Para-
graph A.1. Who Is An Insured Provision:
Any business entity newly acquired or formed by you
during the policy period, provided you own fifty
percent (50%) or more of the business entity and the
business entity is not separately insured for Bus-
iness Auto Coverage. Coverage is extended up to a
maximum of one hundred eighty (180) days
following the acquisition or formation of the business
entity.
This provision does not apply to any person or
organization for which coverage is excluded by
endorsement.
B. Employees As Insureds
The following is added to the SECTION II –
COVERED AUTOS LIABILITY COVERAGE, Para-
graph A.1. Who Is An Insured Provision:
Any “employee” of yours is an “insured” while using
a covered “auto” you don't own, hire or borrow in
your business or your personal affairs.
C. Blanket Additional Insured
The following is added to the SECTION II –
COVERED AUTOS LIABILITY COVERAGE, Para-
graph A.1. Who Is An Insured Provision:
Any person or organization that you are required to
include as an additional insured on this coverage
form in a contract or agreement that is executed by
you before the “bodily injury” or “property damage”
occurs is an “insured” for liability coverage, but only
for damages to which this insurance applies and
only to the extent that person or organization
qualifies as an “insured” under the Who Is An
Insured provision contained in SECTION II –
COVERED AUTOS LIABILITY COVERAGE.
The insurance provided to the additional insured will
be on a primary and non-contributory basis to the
additional insured’s own business auto coverage if
you are required to do so in a contract or agreement
that is executed by you before the “bodily injury” or
property damage” occurs.
D. Blanket Waiver Of Subrogation
The following is added to the SECTION IV – BUSI-
NESS AUTO CONDITIONS, A. Loss Conditions,
5. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against
Others To Us:
We waive any right of recovery we may have against
any person or organization to the extent required of
you by a contract executed prior to any “accident” or
loss”, provided that the “accident” or “loss” arises
out of the operations contemplated by such contract.
The waiver applies only to the person or
organization designated in such contract.
E. Employee Hired Autos
1. The following is added to the SECTION II –
COVERED AUTOS LIABILITY COVERAGE,
Paragraph A.1. Who Is An Insured Provision:
An “employee” of yours is an “insured” while
operating an “auto” hired or rented under a
contract or agreement in that “employee's”
name, with your permission, while performing
duties related to the conduct of your business.
2.Changes In General Conditions:
Paragraph 5.b.of the Other Insurance Con-
dition in the BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS is
deleted and replaced with the following:
b.For Hired Auto Physical Damage Coverage,
the following are deemed to be covered
autos” you own:
1) Any covered “auto” you lease, hire, rent
or borrow; and
2) Any covered “auto” hired or rented by
your “employee” under a contract in that
individual “employee's” name, with your
permission, while performing duties
related to the conduct of your business.
However, any “auto” that is leased,
hired, rented or borrowed with a driver is
not a covered “auto”.
F. Fellow Employee Coverage
SECTION II – COVERED AUTOS LIABILITY
COVERAGE, Exclusion B.5. does not apply if you
have workers compensation insurance in-force
covering all of your employees.
G. Auto Loan Lease Gap Coverage
SECTION III – PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE,
C. Limit Of Insurance, is amended by the addition
of the following:
In the event of a total “loss” to a covered “auto”
shown in the Schedule of Declarations, we will pay
any unpaid amount due on the lease or loan for a
covered “auto”, less:
1.The amount paid under the PHYSICAL
DAMAGE COVERAGE section of the policy;
and
2.Any:
a.Overdue lease/loan payments at the time of
the “loss”;
C. Blanket Additional Insured
Blanket Waiver Of Subro ation
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.
Countersigned by
Authorized Representative
1) Printed in U.S.A.Form WC 04 03 06
WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM
OTHERS ENDORSEMENT - CALIFORNIA
Policy Number: 57 WEG ZJ1989
Named Insured and Address:FEHR & PEERS
We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our
right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. (This agreement applies only to the extent that you
perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from us.)
You must maintain payroll records accurately segregating the remuneration of your employees while engaged in the work
described in the Schedule.
The additional premium for this endorsement shall be 2 % of the California workers' compensation premium otherwise due
on such remuneration.
SCHEDULE
Person or Organization Job Description
Any person or organization from whom you are required by written contract or agreement to obtain this waiver of rights
from us
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:August 12, 2025
RE:ORDINANCE AMENDING ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PROCESS
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Administration is proposing to consolidate the appeals process related to license denial, revocation or
suspension as well as civil infraction appeals. This will replace the current Small Claims Court process and
centralizes the various appeals processes for civil violations into a single, streamlined process outside of the
Justice Court.
If an individual wishes to contest an administrative citation, they may request with an initial written review by a
Hearing Officer. If they wish to contest that, they may request a formal appeal before an Administrative Appeals
Officer. A matrix showing the differences between Hearing Officers and Administrative Appeals Officers is
included in Attachment 1. The proposal is intended to standardize how appeals are filed, reviewed, and
adjudicated.
This change affects appeals related to licenses and civil citations for:
Airport ground transportation services
Animal Services enforcement
Business and occupational licenses (e.g.,
auctioneers, taxicabs, pedicabs, vending
carts)
Engineering stop orders
False alarm penalties (burglary, robbery,
and fire alarms)
Landlord/Tenant Initiative
disqualifications
Sexually Oriented Business operations
Solicitation, peddling, and promotional
sales
Theaters, concerts, and events
Unauthorized street use and snow/ice
removal violations
Waste and recycling collection compliance
By taking the process out of the Justice Court and having appeals be reviewed by an Administrative Appeals*
Officer, the proposed ordinance is anticipated to reduce legal and administrative costs for both the City and
appellants, while also easing the burden on the judicial system.
Goal of the briefing: Prepare to consider the ordinance at the August 19, 2025, Formal Meeting.
A public hearing will be held on August 19, 2025.
Page | 2
POLICY QUESTIONS
The Council may wish to ask the Administration how impacted stakeholders will be notified of this
change appeal procedures.
The Council may wish to ask the Administration when they could expect to consider Administrative
Appeals Officer appointments.
Under the current process, a constituent may appeal an administrative citation and receive an informal initial
hearing from a Hearing Officer. These hearings vary in their format from in person, online, or mail.
If a constituent wishes to appeal further, a Hearing Officer must coordinate with the Justice Court to obtain a
case number and secure a court date. An affidavit is then prepared, and the constituent is formally served by
signing an Entry of Appearance and Certificate of Service. The timeline for completing this step can vary
depending on the court’s responsiveness.
Court dates are often scheduled several months in advance. Prior to the hearing, all case evidence must be
compiled and submitted to the court. Hearings occur in the evening, resulting in overtime costs for City
personnel. Attendance is required by at least two City staff members, including legal representation from the
City Attorney’s Office.
Under the proposed process, City staff may issue an administrative citation for applicable violations of the Salt
Lake City Code where the right to an administrative enforcement hearing is specifically provided by ordinance.
Citations may be delivered in person, by mail, or posted on the property; if mailed, the deadline for response is
extended by seven calendar days.
Recipients of a citation have ten calendar days to either comply and pay the civil penalty or submit a written
request for an initial determination using a form provided by the Department of Finance. This request must
include the citation number, contact information, all grounds for contesting the citation, and any supporting
evidence. A Hearing Officer, which is an employee of the responsible department, will review the written
submission and any evidence provided by the issuing officer. Within five business days, the Hearing Officer will
issue a written decision to either:
Dismiss the citation;
Uphold the citation and reduce the penalty; or
Uphold the citation in full.
If the party disagrees with the result of the initial determination, they may request a formal Administrative
Enforcement Hearing before an appointed Administrative Appeals Officer. This request must be filed within 10
calendar days of the initial determination and include an $81 hearing fee, which is refunded if the appellant
prevails. The Appeals Officer is appointed by the Mayor with Council advice and consent and must be either law-
trained or have significant experience in administrative hearings. They serve renewable three-year terms and
may be removed only for cause.
Dismiss the citation (in full or in part);
Impose or reduce civil penalties;
Page | 3
Require corrective actions by specific deadlines;
Grant the City authority to enter property for abatement;
Recover costs, attorney’s fees, and penalties;
Revoke or suspend licenses or permits; or
Schedule future compliance hearings
This order is final upon issuance and may be appealed to Third District Court within 30 days. The court will
review the administrative record only and will uphold the City’s decision unless it is found to be illegal or
arbitrary and capricious.
Administrative Hearing Officers are not City Employees
Some Appeals Processes will not follow 2.75
Workload
Page | 4
Repeal of Alcohol Establishment Enforcement Provisions
Since the repeal of Title 6 (Alcoholic Beverages) in 2012, the City has largely deferred to the Utah Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Services for enforcement actions involving alcohol licensees. Sections 5.51.040 – 5.51.090
are proposed to be repealed. The repealed sections included specific enforcement, hearing, and appeal processes.
It also repeals the Alcohol Enforcement Hearing Board.
The Administration will continue to regulate alcohol-related activity through business licensing requirements,
special event permits, and other applicable ordinances. Appeals related to business license revocations for these
establishments will now be governed under the new administrative process outlined in Section 2.75 of this
proposal.
Section 5.63.065(B) allows a hearing examiner to issue a pedicab license to individuals with otherwise
disqualifying criminal history if they present evidence of reformed moral character and obtain a
recommendation from their parole officer. This exception applies to individuals who have been convicted of
crimes involving moral turpitude, narcotics or dangerous drugs, felony offenses against persons or property (if
less than five years have passed since conviction or release), or those with two or more felony convictions.
This proposal removes that provision. Under the new administrative hearing process, decisions by hearing
officers are intended to align with objective, codified standards to the greatest extent possible. The provision
allowing a subjective determination of “reformed moral character” has been determined to be too vague and
inappropriate for inclusion in the revised framework. Granting hearing officers broad discretion to override
established ineligibility criteria based on perceived character reform is inconsistent with the ordinance’s goal of
streamlining enforcement and reducing ambiguity in licensing decisions.
The Administration has reported that to their knowledge, this provision has never been used.
Sections 12.24.016 and 12.24.018 are proposed to be repealed, as they are duplicative of State Law and are
redundant in our City Code.
1. Differences between Hearing Officers and Administrative Appeals Officers
ATTACHMENT 1:
Page | 6
Differences between Hearing Officers and Administrative Appeals Officers
Appointment
Designated by the Department of
Finance (may be a City employee)
Appointed by the Mayor with advice and
consent of the City Council
Qualifications
No specific legal training required
Must be law-trained or have significant
experience with administrative hearing
processes
Role Conducts initial informal review
(Initial Determination) of
administrative citations
Conducts formal Administrative
Enforcement Hearings (after a party
appeals a Hearing Officer’s decision)
Standard of Review Reviews submitted evidence; no
hearing or testimony; determines
whether violation occurred
Conducts de novo review — considers the
case anew, with no deference to prior
decisions
Decision Authority May:
• Dismiss citation
• Uphold citation with or without
penalty reduction
May:
• Affirm, modify, or reverse citation
• Impose penalties or corrective actions
• Authorize abatements
Public Hearing
No — written review only, based on
submitted documents
Yes — public hearing with testimony,
evidence, and optional legal representation
Continuing Jurisdiction
None after decision is issued.
Has continuing jurisdiction to issue orders,
authorize abatements, modify decisions, or
schedule compliance hearings
Conflict of Interest Rules
Not specified Cannot participate in cases involving a
conflict under Chapter 2.44
Appealability
Decisions can be appealed to an
Administrative Appeals Officer
Final decisions can be appealed to Third
District Court
Term and Removal
Not specified; operates under Finance
Department procedures
Serves renewable 3-year terms; can only be
removed for cause
Subpoena Power
Not authorized
May issue administrative subpoenas
under Chapter 2.59 and applicable
policies
Administrative
Appeals Proc ess
Hearing Off ic er
M akes
Determination
Ad m in is t r at i ve
A p p eal s Of f ic er
Con d u c t s a De Nov o
Hear ing
Th ird Dist r ic t
Co ur t
Yes
M ail Warning to
the Property
Ow ner
Police Personnel
Respond s to
Incid ent
Responsible
Business/Ow ner
Ordinanc e
Unruly Party
Administrative
Enforcement
Process
Issue
Administrative
Cit ation ($1,0 00
Fine)
Dec lare Nuisance
(Cit y Dec lares
Nuisanc e 11.18.070)
Cite: (Administrative
Citation Issued
11.18.0 8 0 )
Correct:
(Responsible Par t y
Takes Correc tive
Ac tion)
Ap peal: ( Appeal
Citation Within 17
Days, 11.18.10 0 )
Ap peals Related to
Ad ministrative Civ il
Citations
Administrat ive
Citat ion is issued
M ail/Post Citat ion
(Parking, Zoning ,
Business License,
False Alar m, etc )
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
07/23/2025
Date Sent to Council:
07/29/2025
From:
Department *
Finance
Employee Name:
Najarro, Andrea
E-mail
andrea.najarro@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
07/23/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
07/29/2025
Subject:
Ordinance Amending Administrative Hearing Process
New transmittal or
Revision
New transmittal
Revision
Revision Updates:
Corrections were made to the Administrative hearing ordinance, and an Amendment to the CFS Ordinance was added.
Additional Staff Contact:
Lisa Hunt - 801-535-7926 - Lisa.Hunt@slc.govArturo Garcia - 801-535-6502 - Arturo.Garcia@slc.govKatherine Pasker - 801-535-7633 - Katherine.Pasker@slc.gov
Presenters/Staff Table
Arturo Garcia - 801-535-6502 - Arturo.Garcia@slc.govKatherine Pasker - 801-535-7633 - Katherine.Pasker@slc.gov
Document Type
Ordinance
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
The Administration recommends that the City Council adopt amendments to the Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.75, Enforcement of Civil Violations, as well as amend the CFS Administrative hearing fees.
Background/Discussion
See first attachment for Background/Discussion
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
Public Hearing
This page has intentionally been left blank
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2025
(Providing a general administrative hearing process for violations of the Salt Lake City Code)
An ordinance amending Titles 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 16 of the Salt Lake City Code to
establish a uniform administrative hearing process for civil violations of city code.
WHEREAS, a petition was submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall to amend portions of
Salt Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to an administrative hearing process for the
resolution of administrative citations; and
WHEREAS, the city has a significant interest in the timely and effective resolution of
appeals of administrative citations in a manner that provides due process of law; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the Salt Lake 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,
as follows:
SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.59. That Chapter 2.59
of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
2.59.010: PURPOSE:
It is the purpose of this chapter to provide for the issuance of city subpoenas to the extent
authorized by state law, including, but not limited to, Utah Code Section 10-3-610.
2.59.020: EXECUTIVE BRANCH SUBPOENAS:
The executive branch may authorize subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses located
within the state to give testimony or to produce records and documents or other items.
2
A. A subpoena may be authorized upon signature of the mayor or his or her designee or by a
department head.
B. All executive subpoenas must also be endorsed by the city attorney, deputy city attorney,
or any assistant city attorney. The attorney's signature shall be an affirmation the subpoena is an
appropriate exercise of administrative power prior to the recorder issuing the subpoena.
2.59.030: LEGISLATIVE BRANCH SUBPOENAS:
The city council may authorize a subpoena upon a majority vote of the council. Such subpoenas
shall be signed by any member of the council voting to authorize the subpoena. Upon such vote
and signature, the subpoena shall be reviewed and approved "as to form" by the city attorney,
deputy city attorney or any assistant city attorney and shall then be issued by the city recorder.
2.59.035: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER SUBPOENAS:
A. A city appointed administrative appeals officer may issue subpoenas in connection with
administrative hearings conducted pursuant to Sections 2.75.190 and 2.24.050 and Chapters
21A.16 and 21A.18 to compel the attendance of persons or the production of nonprivileged
and/or nonconfidential documents at such proceedings.
B. The administrative appeals officer shall not issue the subpoena if (1) the documents or
testimony sought by the subpoena are not relevant, (2) the documents or testimony sought by the
subpoena are not helpful to decide the issues at the hearing considering the significance and
nature of the factual disputes at issue in the hearing, (3) the subpoena is intended to harass or
annoy any party or the subject thereof, or (4) the subpoena is requested for the purpose of delay
or to cause an undue burden.
C. The administrative appeals officer shall consider objections by the parties and any non-
party subject to a subpoena pursuant to the applicable policies and procedures for such
administrative hearing.
D. The administrative appeals officer shall comply with the procedures for issuance of a
subpoena as set forth in the applicable policies and procedures for such administrative hearing.
2.59.040: ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS:
A. All executive or legislative subpoenas shall be issued by the city recorder's office. The
recorder's office shall keep a record containing: 1) the date of issuance, 2) the matter for which
the subpoena was issued, 3) returns of all subpoenas, and 4) at whose request the subpoena was
issued.
B. All executive or legislative subpoenas shall be issued with an original and a copy. The
original, together with proof of service, shall be returned to the recorder's office and a copy left
with the person upon whom it is served.
3
C. The subpoena shall be issued in the name of the city and shall be entitled "city subpoena"
and shall state whether it is before the legislative branch or the executive branch. The subpoena
shall state the title of the matter being heard and shall command each person to whom it is
directed to attend and give testimony and/or produce records or documents at a time and place
specified in the body of the subpoena.
D. Nothing in this section shall limit the city's authority to issue subpoenas in criminal
matters as provided by law.
2.59.050: RESERVED
2.59.060: SERVICE OF CITY SUBPOENAS:
Service shall be in accord with rule 4 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
2.59.070: RESERVED
2.59.080: PAYMENT OF SUBPOENA COSTS:
A. Cost of Subpoenas Issued on Behalf of the City: All costs of service and witness fees for
subpoenas issued on behalf of the city shall be paid by the department (including the mayor's
office or the city council) on whose behalf the subpoena was issued, unless or until a fund is
created to pay for these costs. These costs shall include witness fees and mileage.
B. Subpoenas Issued on Behalf of Other Parties: All costs of service and witness fees for
subpoenas issued on behalf of any person other than the city shall be paid by the person
requesting issuance of the subpoena.
C. City Documents: Any party requesting city production of city documents shall pay all the
costs of producing the documents, including, but not limited to, the search costs, employee salary
costs and cost of reproduction of the documents. Each department required to furnish the
documents shall collect its own costs.
D. Witness Fees: Witness fees shall be the same as authorized in Utah Code Section 78B-1-
119, or its successor.
2.59.090: ENFORCEMENT OF SUBPOENAS:
Any party who willfully fails to comply with the subpoena, or who, having appeared, refuses to
answer any question pertinent to the matter under inquiry, except in accord with privileges
granted by law, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished in accord with the punishments
set by the state for class B misdemeanors.
4
SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.75. That Chapter
2.75 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows:
CHAPTER 2.75
ENFORCEMENT OF CIVIL VIOLATIONS
Article I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
2.75.010: PURPOSE AND INTENT:
2.75.020: SCOPE:
2.75.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED:
2.75.040: CRIMINAL PROSECUTION RIGHT:
2.75.050: DEFINITIONS:
2.75.010: PURPOSE AND INTENT:
For specified administrative citations, as more particularly defined and designated in the Salt
Lake City Code, which are issued by the city, it is the purpose and intent of the city to afford
the recipient of such citation due process of law. Due process shall require proper notice of the
nature of the violation and the opportunity to be heard.
2.75.020: SCOPE:
The provisions of this chapter may be applied to all violations of the Salt Lake City Code that are
enforced through the issuance of an administrative citation and occur within Salt Lake City limits
and such territory outside Salt Lake City limits over which the city has jurisdiction or control by
virtue of any law or constitutional provision. However, if a more specific enforcement procedure
for a particular class of violations is expressly set forth in the Salt Lake City Code, then that
specifically-enumerated enforcement procedure shall apply.
2.75.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED:
The provisions of this chapter are not intended to invalidate any other provision of the Salt Lake
City Code and shall be read in harmony therewith.
2.75.040: CRIMINAL PROSECUTION RIGHT:
5
The provisions of this chapter shall not be construed to limit the city’s right to prosecute a
violation of the Salt Lake City Code as a criminal offense.
2.75.050: DEFINITIONS:
In the construction of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be as defined as set
forth in this section:
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER: A person appointed by the mayor to conduct
administrative enforcement hearings.
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: A citation notifying a person of an administrative violation.
The term “administrative citation” shall be deemed to include any reference in this code to a
“civil notice”, a “notice of violation”, an itemized statement of abatement costs, a notice of
abatement, or other notice of any adverse municipal decision for which the right to an
administrative enforcement hearing is specifically provided by ordinance.
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: All costs incurred by the city in connection with an administrative
violation, including but not limited to costs incurred in preparing for and attending an
administrative enforcement hearing.
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: A hearing held by an administrative
appeals officer pursuant to the procedures established by this chapter.
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: An order issued by an administrative appeals
officer pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, including but not limited to an order to pay civil
penalties and administrative costs.
ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLATION: Any violation of the Salt Lake City Code that the city has
elected not to prosecute as a criminal citation. The term “administrative violation” shall be
deemed to include any reference in this code to a “civil violation” where such civil violation is
subject to the processes and procedures set forth in this chapter.
CITY: The city of Salt Lake City, Utah.
CITY COUNCIL: The legislative body of Salt Lake City, Utah.
CIVIL PENALTY: A penalty imposed on a responsible person in conjunction with the issuance
of an administrative citation for a violation of the Salt Lake City Code.
HEARING OFFICER: A person authorized to facilitate the informal resolution of administrative
violations through an initial determination conducted prior to an administrative enforcement
hearing.
6
INITIAL DETERMINATION: An informal hearing conducted by a hearing officer where the
hearing officer reviews the evidence provided by the responsible person to whom the
administrative citation corresponds and makes a determination as to whether such evidence
justifies upholding or dismissing the administrative citation.
ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS: A written notice that informs a responsible person of
abatement actions taken by the city and provides an itemized statement of costs for those actions.
MAYOR: The mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah.
NOTICE OF ABATEMENT: A written notice that informs a responsible person of abatement
actions taken by the city and provides an itemized statement of costs for those actions.
PERSON: Any natural person, firm, joint venture, joint stock company, partnership, association,
club, company, corporation, business trust, organization, or the manager, lessee, agent, officer, or
employee of the same, or any other entity or individual recognized by law as having rights or
duties.
RESPONSIBLE PERSON: A responsible person includes:
A. A person who causes or materially contributes to the causation of an administrative
violation or is otherwise responsible for an administrative violation as set forth in the
Salt Lake City Code; or
B. A person whose agent, employee, or independent contractor causes or materially
contributes to the causation of an administrative violation; or
C. The owner or occupant of real property within the city’s jurisdiction at which a
violation of the Salt Lake City Code occurs or exists.
Article II
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY
2.75.060: ADOPTION OF POLICY AND PROCEDURES:
2.75.070: DESIGNATION OF HEARING OFFICERS:
2.75.080; POWERS OF HEARING OFFICERS:
2.75.090: APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICERS:
2.75.100: POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICERS:
2.75.110: FALSE INFORMATION OR REFUSAL PROHIBITED:
2.75.120: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, AIDING, AND ABETTING:
2.75.060: ADOPTION OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES:
The chief administrative officer, or his/her designee, shall establish policies and procedures
addressing the enforcement of civil violations if such policies and procedures are consistent with
the provisions of this chapter.
7
2.75.070: DESIGNATION OF HEARING OFFICERS/ELECTIVE USE:
A. The department responsible for issuing the administrative citation may elect to refer
appeals of the same to the hearing officer process set forth in Sections 2.75.130, 2.75.160 and
2.75.170. In the event such election is not made, such department shall provide a similar
informal process to evaluate any evidence provided by the recipient of an administrative citation
that a violation did not occur or that there is good cause to rescind or otherwise provide relief
from the administrative citation. The administrative enforcement hearings process set forth in
Sections 2.75.90, 2.75.100, and Article III below shall be available to appeal such departmental
initial determination.
B. The department of finance shall designate hearing officers through any process consistent
with the city’s human resources policies and procedures. A hearing officer may be a city
employee.
2.75.080: POWERS OF HEARING OFFICERS:
A. A hearing officer shall conduct informal initial determinations regarding violations of the
Salt Lake City Code as provided in this chapter.
B. The hearing officer shall have the authority to:
1. Determine whether a violation has occurred; and
2. Subject to Section 2.75.170.B, dismiss an administrative citation; or
3. Subject to Section 2.75.170.B, uphold the administrative citation and reduce the civil
penalty associated with the administrative citation; or
4. Uphold the administrative citation without reducing the civil penalty associated with
the administrative citation.
2.75.090: APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICERS:
A. The mayor, with the advice and consent of the city council, shall appoint one or more
administrative appeals officers to conduct administrative enforcement hearings.
B. An administrative appeals officer:
1. Shall not participate in any appeal in which the officer has a conflict of interest
prohibited by Chapter 2.44; and
2. Shall be either law trained or have significant experience with the requirements and
operations of administrative hearing processes.
C. An administrative appeals officer shall serve for renewable terms of three years and,
during any three-year term, shall be subject to removal by the mayor only for cause.
8
2.75.100: POWERS & JURISDICTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICERS:
A. Except where a more specific enforcement appeal process is provided for in the Salt
Lake City Code, and, where a responsible person or the city has properly requested an
administrative enforcement hearing, an administrative appeals officer shall hear appeals
challenging any administrative citation.
B. An administrative appeals officer shall have authority to hold an administrative
enforcement hearing for violations of the Salt Lake City Code and such other matters as
specifically designated by ordinance.
C. Standard of Review: The standard of review for an appeal shall be de novo. The
administrative appeals officer shall review the matter anew, based upon applicable
procedures and standards for approval, and shall give no deference to the decision
resulting in the administrative citation. The administrative appeals officer shall uphold
the administrative citation unless it is not supported by substantial evidence or it
violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect when the administrative citation was
issued.
D. Burden of Proof: The appellant has the burden of proving that the administrative
citation is incorrect, or in the event the city is the appellant, that the hearing officer
erred.
E. An administrative appeals officer may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or may
modify the administrative citation.
F. After issuing a decision on the appeal, an administrative appeals officer has continuing
jurisdiction over the subject matter of an administrative enforcement hearing for the
purposes of: issuing further administrative orders to obtain compliance with the
decision; authorizing the city to enter upon private property to abate a violation;
modifying an administrative order, staying an administrative order, assessing costs of
abatement, assessing a civil penalty; or, where extraordinary circumstances exist,
granting a new hearing.
G. An administrative appeals officer shall not make any order contrary to any law or that
would require or allow a person to violate state law or city ordinance.
H. An administrative appeals officer may issue administrative subpoenas pursuant to
Chapter 2.59 in accordance with the policies and procedures adopted pursuant to
Section 2.75.060.
2.75.110: FALSE INFORMATION OR REFUSAL PROHIBITED:
9
It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully make a false statement or refuse to give the
person’s name or address with intent to deceive or interfere with the performance of the official
duties of the person issuing the administrative citation, the hearing officer, or the administrative
appeals officer under the provisions of this chapter.
2.75.120: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, AIDING, AND ABETTING:
Whenever any act or omission is made unlawful in this chapter, it shall include causing,
permitting, aiding, or abetting such act or omission.
Article III
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
2.75.130: ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION APPEAL PROCEDURE OVERVIEW:
2.75.140: ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION:
2.75.150: CIVIL PENALTIES ASSESSED:
2.75.160: REQUEST FOR INITIAL DETERMINATION:
2.75.170: INITIAL DETERMINATION PROCEDURES:
2.75.180: NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING:
2.75.190: ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING PROCEDURES:
2.75.200: ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER:
2.75.210: APPEAL TO DISTRICT COURT:
2.75.220: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS:
2.75.130: ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION APPEAL PROCEDURE OVERVIEW:
Administrative citations and timely appeals thereof shall be processed using the following
procedural framework:
A. When there is a determination that a violation of the Salt Lake City Code has occurred,
any authorized city personnel may issue an administrative citation for such violation to
the responsible person;
B. Any person receiving an administrative citation shall, within ten (10) calendar days, or
such longer period if stated on the administrative citation, either (1) comply with the
terms of the administrative citation, including payment of any specified civil penalty then
due, or (2) file a written request for an initial determination on a form provided by the
department of finance. The written request for an initial determination shall include a
statement describing the grounds that support the person’s challenge to the administrative
citation and shall be accompanied by any evidence the person desires to submit to a
hearing officer. After reviewing such written request and the submitted evidence, a
hearing officer shall render a written determination regarding the challenged
10
administrative citation. The written determination shall promptly be sent to all parties to
the initial determination.
C. If the recipient of the administrative citation does not agree with the determination of the
hearing officer, then the recipient of the administrative citation shall file a written request
for an administrative enforcement hearing and pay the administrative enforcement
hearing fee as set forth in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule within ten (10)
days of the hearing officer’s written decision. After such a request for hearing is received,
an administrative enforcement hearing will be held and an administrative appeals officer
will issue an administrative enforcement order regarding the administrative citation.
D. Within thirty (30) days of the date the administrative enforcement order is issued, both
the city and the recipient of the administrative citation shall have the right to appeal the
administrative enforcement order by filing a petition for review with the Third District
Court of Utah.
2.75.140: ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION:
A. An administrative citation may be issued to any responsible person.
B. The administrative citation shall include the following information:
1. Name of responsible person (if the name of the responsible person cannot
reasonably be ascertained, then a description of the real or personal property that
is the subject of the violation shall suffice);
2. Location of violation;
3. Date when the violation is observed;
4. A code citation and a description of each violation;
5. The amount of the civil penalty that corresponds to each violation;
6. Procedures for paying civil penalties;
7. Any instructions or other guidance specific to the facts of the violation at issue
and any corrective action available to the responsible person other than payment
of the civil penalty, if applicable; and
8. Procedures to request an initial determination and a description of the
consequences for failure to request or appear at such initial determination.
C. Notice of an administrative citation shall be issued to a responsible person in the
following manner:
1. Personally delivering the administrative citation to the responsible person; or
2. Sending the citation by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the responsible
person; or
3. Posting a copy of the administrative citation on the real or personal property
that gave rise to the administrative citation.
11
D. Service of an administrative citation is effective upon utilizing any method of issuance
set forth in Section 2.75.140.C. However, the deadline set forth in Section 2.75.160.A
shall be extended by 7 days if a citation is served pursuant to Section 2.75.140.C.2.
2.75.150: CIVIL PENALTIES ASSESSED:
A. Any person receiving an administrative citation shall comply with the terms of the
administrative citation, including payment of any specified civil penalty then due, unless
an initial determination is requested.
B. If the Salt Lake City Code states that the civil penalty for a particular administrative
violation will be reduced if payment is received within a specified time period, then the
city’s receipt of either payment or a request for an initial determination prior to the
expiration of that specified time period will permit the recipient of the administrative
citation to receive that penalty reduction. However, after all requested determinations and
hearings have been concluded, a person may forfeit such penalty reduction by failing to
timely pay any civil penalty ordered by the hearing officer or administrative appeals
officer, as applicable.
C. The civil penalty for each violation listed on an administrative citation shall be as set
forth in the Salt Lake City Code.
D. If the civil penalties payable to the city remain unsatisfied, and no written request for an
initial determination has been timely filed, the city may use such lawful means as are
available to collect such civil penalties.
2.75.160: REQUEST FOR INITIAL DETERMINATION:
A. Any person receiving an administrative citation shall, within ten (10) calendar days, or
such longer period if stated on the administrative citation, either (1) comply with the
terms of the administrative citation, including payment of any specified civil penalty then
due, or (2) file a written request for an initial determination on a form provided by the
department of finance.
B. Any recipient of an administrative citation may request a copy of the documents
maintained by the city supporting the administrative citation.
C. A request for an initial determination shall be submitted to the department of finance,
either electronically or by submitting a hard copy document, on a form provided by the
department of finance. The request shall include:
1. The administrative citation number or case file number, as applicable;
2. The name, physical address, telephone number, and email address of the person
requesting the initial determination;
12
3. A statement describing the grounds that support the person’s challenge to the
administrative citation, which shall set forth every theory of relief that will be presented to the
hearing officer; and
4. Any evidence the person desires to submit for the initial determination.
D. Failure by a person to timely request an initial determination shall constitute a waiver of
the right to any initial determination and administrative enforcement hearing and a waiver
of the right to challenge the administrative citation. If an initial determination is not
timely requested and administrative citation is not complied with then the city may elect
to enforce the administrative citation by any lawful means.
2.75.170: INITIAL DETERMINATION PROCEDURES:
A. A request for an initial determination filed in compliance with the requirements of
Section 2.75.160 shall be processed as follows:
1. The city shall bear the burden of proof to establish the existence of a violation of the
Salt Lake City Code. Such proof shall be established by a preponderance of the evidence.
2. The hearing officer shall review the written request for an initial determination,
including the arguments and evidence set forth therein;
3. The hearing officer shall also review any evidence related to the administrative citation
provided by the issuer thereof; and
4. The hearing officer shall issue a written determination regarding the administrative
citation within five (5) business days from the date the written request for an initial
determination is received. The hearing officer’s written decision may:
a. Dismiss the administrative citation;
b. Uphold the administrative citation and reduce the associated civil
penalty; or
c. Uphold the administrative citation without reducing the associated
civil penalty.
B. A hearing officer shall only dismiss an administrative citation or reduce a civil penalty
associated therewith as follows:
1. If the person receiving the administrative citation is not the responsible party;
2. If the administrative citation does not comply with Section 2.75.140.
3. The city has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation
identified in the administrative citation occurred.
4. Imminent injury to persons or property would result from compliance with the
administrative citation.
5. All corrective actions outlined in the notice of violation were completed on or before
the compliance date.
6. Such mitigating circumstances expressly identified in the Salt Lake City Code
corresponding to the specific violation at issue.
13
7. When conducting an initial determination involving an alleged violation for
unauthorized use of streets, a hearing officer may only dismiss an administrative citation
or reduce the civil penalties corresponding to such a citation pursuant to the criteria set
forth in Section 12.56.570, or its successor.
8. Civil penalties shall not be reduced where a violation is sustained by the hearing
officer but the responsible person has not yet complied with the corrective action, if any,
identified in the administrative citation.
9. Or as otherwise limited by law.
C. A person adversely affected by a hearing officer’s written determination, or written
determination of the applicable department if the department has not elected to use a
hearing officer pursuant to Section 2.75.070, may appeal that written determination by
filing a completed request for an administrative enforcement hearing within ten (10) days
of the date on which the written determination was issued. A request for an
administrative enforcement hearing shall be made in writing on a form provided by the
department of finance and may be filed, either electronically or by submitting a hard copy
document, with the department of finance. The request shall include:
1. The administrative citation number or case file number, as applicable;
2. The name, address, telephone number, and email address of the person requesting the
hearing;
3. A statement describing the grounds that support the person’s challenge to the
administrative citation, which shall set forth every theory of relief that will be presented
to the administrative appeals officer;
4. Any evidence the person desires to submit for the administrative appeals officer’s
consideration; and
5. An administrative enforcement hearing fee as set forth in the Salt Lake City
consolidated fee schedule. However, in no case shall the administrative enforcement
hearing fee assessed be greater than the base civil penalty that corresponds to the
cumulative administrative violation(s) at issue. In the event that the city is the appellant,
no hearing fee shall be payable from either party. The hearing fee shall be due at the time
of filing the hearing request. An administrative enforcement hearing request shall not be
considered complete until the hearing fee is paid.
a. If the citation recipient prevails at the administrative enforcement
hearing, the administrative enforcement hearing fee shall be refunded to
the citation recipient. Otherwise, no refund of the hearing fee shall be
granted. A modification of the administrative citation or mere reduction in
the civil penalty shall not render the citation recipient the prevailing party.
D. Failure by a person to timely request an administrative enforcement hearing shall
constitute a waiver of the right to make any further challenge regarding the administrative
citation or result of the initial determination. If an administrative enforcement hearing is
not timely requested and the hearing officer’s written determination, or the written
determination of the applicable department if the department has not elected to use a
hearing officer pursuant to Section 2.75.070, has not been complied with, then the city
14
may elect to enforce the administrative citation, or written determination to the extent it
modified the administrative citation, by any lawful means.
2.75.180: NOTICE & ATTENDANCE AT ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT
HEARING:
A. Upon receipt of a request for an administrative enforcement hearing the administrative
appeals officer shall schedule and hold a hearing in accordance with the standards and
procedures adopted in Section 2.75.060. All administrative enforcement hearings shall be open
to the public and shall be recorded.
B. Notification of the date, time and place of the hearing shall be given a minimum of
twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the hearing.
C. Time Limitation: All administrative enforcement hearings shall be held within one
hundred eighty (180) days of the written determination by the hearing officer, or department if
applicable. Appeals not heard within this time frame will be considered moot and the associated
administrative citation withdrawn by the city.
D. If a person, without good cause, fails to appear at an administrative enforcement hearing
then the administrative appeals officer may (1) render a decision based solely upon the
arguments and evidence submitted prior to the hearing by the non-appearing party and any
arguments and evidence submitted by the appearing party at the hearing, or (2) grant a decision
by default to the appearing party. The administrative appeals officer shall have discretion to
determine whether good cause for an absence exists.
2.75.190: ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING PROCEDURES:
A. Administrative enforcement hearings are intended to be informal in nature. Formal rules
of evidence and discovery shall not apply. No later than five (5) business days prior to the
hearing the party that did not request the hearing shall provide the other an electronic
copy of any documents, photographs or other tangible evidence it intends to present at the
hearing and both parties shall provide a list of the witnesses that will testify at the
hearing. If an administrative citation arises from a complaint by a person who is not a city
employee, the complainant’s information shall not be disclosed or released other than the
inclusion of a complainant’s name in a witness list if the complainant will be a witness at
the hearing.
B. Each party shall have the right to be represented by an attorney at their sole cost and
expense. If an attorney will be representing a responsible person at a hearing, notice of
the attorney’s name, telephone number, and email address shall be provided at least two
(2) business days prior to the hearing. If such notice is not given, the hearing may be
continued at the city’s request, and all costs of the continuance may be assessed to the
responsible person.
15
C. No new hearing shall be granted unless the administrative appeals officer determines that
extraordinary circumstances exist that justify a new hearing.
D. Hearings shall be conducted in a manner as to afford the parties due process and in
accordance with the policies and procedures adopted pursuant to Section 2.75.060.
E. The burden to prove any defense shall be upon the party raising such defense.
F. After considering all applicable evidence, testimony, and defenses presented, the
administrative appeals officer shall issue a written administrative enforcement order in
accordance with the requirements and criteria set forth in Section 2.75.200.
2.75.200: ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER:
A. After an administrative enforcement hearing, or the close of evidence, whichever occurs
later, the administrative appeals officer shall, within ten (10) business days, issue a written
administrative enforcement order that includes findings of fact and conclusions of law that
support the administrative appeals officer’s decision and, if applicable, the action required of the
responsible party to satisfy the order. If a decision is rendered at the administrative enforcement
hearing the administrative appeals officer may assign the party who prevailed, if represented by
counsel, the task of preparing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
B. Depending on the nature of the administrative violation at issue, an administrative
appeals officer may issue an administrative enforcement order that orders any of the
following:
1. Dismisses an administrative citation, or dismisses one or more of the administrative
violations associated with the administrative citation.
2. Requires a responsible person to cease and desist from committing or otherwise abate
the conditions causing the administrative violations identified in the administrative
citation;
3. Requires a responsible person to take any necessary corrective action to avoid
committing or to cease committing the administrative violations and establish
deadlines for the same;
3. Imposes civil penalties as set forth in this code;
4. Permits the city to enter property identified in the administrative citation and abate all
violations;
a. Whenever an order of abatement is entered the administrative appeals
officer shall also order the responsible person to pay to the city the actual
costs of the abatement and any administrative costs the city incurs in
performing the abatement.
16
5. Reduces the civil penalties associated with one or more administrative violations,
except that no such reduction shall be ordered when the violation is sustained but the
responsible person has not yet complied with the corrective action affirmed or
ordered by the administrative appeals officer;
6. Establishes specific deadlines for the payment of civil penalties and administrative
costs;
7. Denies, revokes, or suspends a city license, permit or other city approval;
8. Provides for subsequent review hearings as may be necessary to ensure compliance
with an administrative enforcement order;
9. Imposes any other applicable penalties or fees in accordance with the provisions set
forth in this code.
C. In considering a request to modify civil penalties imposed in connection with an
administrative citation an administrative appeals officer may consider any or all of the
following factors:
1. Duration, frequency, and reoccurrence of a violation;
2. Seriousness of a violation;
3. History of a violation;
4. Good faith effort by a responsible person to comply with the administrative citation or,
if applicable, the administrative enforcement order;
5. Prior record of city code violations; and
6. Any other factor appropriate to a just result.
D. Promptly after an administrative enforcement order is issued it shall be sent either by
mail to the address or to the email address identified on the administrative enforcement
hearing request. An administrative enforcement order shall be deemed final on the date it
is sent to such address. The deadline for appeal pursuant to Section 2.75.210.B shall be
extended by 7 days for order sent by mail.
E. If a responsible person fails to comply with the terms set forth in an administrative
enforcement order, the city may use all appropriate legal means to obtain compliance
thereof and recover civil penalties and administrative costs, including attorney’s fees.
2.75.210: APPEAL TO DISTRICT COURT:
A. The city or any responsible person adversely affected by a final administrative
enforcement order may file a petition for review with the Third District Court of Utah. The scope
of review shall be limited to the record before the administrative appeals officer. The court shall
presume the final administrative enforcement order is correct and shall not reweigh the evidence.
The administrative enforcement order may be overturned if it is illegal or arbitrary and
capricious. The administrative enforcement order shall be upheld if it is supported by substantial
evidence.
B. A petition for review shall be barred unless it is filed within thirty (30) days after the
administrative enforcement order is final.
17
C. The recording of the administrative enforcement hearing, any available minutes, evidence
submitted by the parties, orders, and if available, a true and correct transcript of the proceeding,
shall be provided by the city to the district court after the filing of a petition for review.
D. The filing of a petition for review in district court does not stay the final decision of the
administrative appeals officer.
2.75.220: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS:
At any time the recipient of an administrative citation and the city may enter into a stipulated
settlement agreement, which shall be signed by both parties. An executed settlement agreement
shall be binding upon the parties thereto. Execution of such agreement shall constitute a waiver,
as to the merits of the administrative citation, of any right to an initial determination, an
administrative enforcement hearing, and an appeal to district court, to the extent not yet
conducted.
SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 2.84.100. That Section
2.84.100 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
2.84.100: JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY:
The justice court shall have jurisdiction over all matters as provided by Utah Code Title 78A
Chapter 7.
SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.100. That Section
5.02.100 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.02.100: INVESTIGATION POWERS:
A. Investigation: Prior to the issuance of any business license required by this title, the city
may investigate any applicant for such license to ensure such applicant, proposed business, and
proposed place of business comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations. Such
investigation may include entry into the proposed business premises.
B. Documents Production: Unless the business license application is withdrawn by the
applicant, and no business operations are taking place without the required license the city may
compel the production of documents in order to conduct such investigation.
18
C. Continuing Powers: In the event that a license is issued pursuant to this title, the license
holder and place of business shall be subject to ongoing inspections and investigation to
determine continued compliance with the terms and conditions of the license and all applicable
laws, rules and regulations.
SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.115. That Section
5.02.115 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.02.115: TIME LIMITATIONS:
License Issuance Limitations: Unless otherwise specified by a specific ordinance, the city has
thirty (30) days in which to complete its review and approve or deny a license. If a review cannot
be completed within thirty (30) days, a conditional license may be issued to the applicant subject
to completion of the review, verifying the applicant meets all license requirements.
SECTION 6. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.230. That Section
5.02.230 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed in its entirety as follows:
5.02.230: RESERVED
SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.250. That Section
5.02.250 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.02.250: LICENSE; DENIAL, SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION; CONDITIONS:
A. Conditions of Denial, Suspension or Revocation: The licensee shall be responsible for the
operation of the licensed premises in conformance with the ordinances of the city. Any business
license issued by the city may be suspended or revoked, and any application for any business
license or for the renewal of any business license may be denied due to any of the following
arising out of or otherwise related to the application for, or the operation of, the business at issue:
1. The applicant or place of business does not meet the qualifications for a license;
2. Nonpayment of required fees;
3. An incomplete application;
4. Noncompliance with any requirement or condition associated with a city approval
associated with the business (i.e. conditional use permit, development agreement,
variance);
19
5. A violation of or a conviction for violating any ordinance regulating or governing
the business for which said license was granted;
6. A violation of or conviction for violating any other city ordinance or law of the
state which affects the health, welfare or safety of its residents, including, but not limited
to, a public nuisance, and which violation or conviction relates to the business so licensed
or to be licensed;
7. A violation of or conviction for violating an ordinance which violation or
conviction resulted from the operation of the business so licensed;
8. Any material misrepresentation or any fraud perpetrated on the licensing authority
through application for, or operation of, said business; or
9. The applicant or licensee has refused authorized representatives of the city access
to the place of business for the purpose of an inspection or has interfered with such
representatives while in the performance of their duty in making such inspection.
B. Other Grounds Not Precluded: These violations shall not limit, but shall be in addition to,
other grounds for the denial, suspension or revocation of any license as provided for by
ordinance.
C. Theaters; Prior Violations: The foregoing provisions of this section notwithstanding,
nothing herein shall authorize a revocation or suspension of any license of any theater, motion
picture house or concert hall, based on a prior conviction or violation of exhibition or distribution
of obscene material.
SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.260. That Section
5.02.260 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.02.260: LICENSE; DENIAL, SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION; PROCEDURE:
Any suspension, revocation or denial of a license may be appealed pursuant to Chapter 2.75.
Suspension or revocation shall not take effect until the time period for appealing the decision has
expired or, if applicable, a decision is issued as a result of a timely appeal.
SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.270. That Section
5.02.270 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.02.270: NEW LICENSE APPLICATION; WAITING PERIOD REQUIRED WHEN:
It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or any agent, manager or operator of any person,
corporation or firm who has had a license suspended, revoked or denied to reapply for or obtain a
license, or operate a business, which has been so suspended, revoked or denied during the time
that said license has been revoked, suspended or denied or for a period of one (1) year from the
20
effective date of said suspension, revocation, or denial if no period of debarment is specified by
the order of suspension, revocation, or denial.
SECTION 10. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Sections 5.02.280, 5.02.290,
and 5.02.310. That Sections 5.02.280, 5.02.290, and 5.02.310 of the Salt Lake City Code are
hereby repealed in their entirety.
5.02.280: HEARING EXAMINERS; APPOINTMENT AND POWERS:
The Mayor may appoint one (1) or more hearing examiners upon the advice and consent of the
City Council, and the Mayor or any hearing examiner shall have power and authority to call,
preside at and conduct hearings to consider the suspension, revocation, denial or approval of
licenses issued by Salt Lake City Corporation, including the power to examine witnesses and
receive evidence, compel the attendance of witnesses, and compel the production of documents.
5.02.290: HEARINGS HELD BEFORE A HEARING EXAMINER:
At the conclusion of any hearing held as provided in section 5.02.260 of this chapter, or its
successor section, the hearing examiner shall issue or adopt written findings of fact and
conclusions of law and an order which is based upon and supported by the evidence presented at
the hearing. Such findings, conclusions and order shall have full force and effect upon issuance,
and shall be binding upon all parties as of the date and time of such issuance. The City and the
licensee or applicant may appeal such findings, conclusions and order to a court of competent
jurisdiction within thirty (30) days of the date on which the hearing examiner issues such
findings, conclusions and order.
5.02.310: SUBPOENAS:
At the request of any party, subpoenas for attendance at any hearing or for production of books,
papers, documents or tangible things shall be issued as provided in title 2, chapter 2.59 of this
Code or its successor chapter.
SECTION 11. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.04.040. That
Section 5.04.040 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.04.040: BUSINESS LICENSING FEES – EXEMPTIONS:
A. Fee Exemptions: No base license fee shall be imposed under this chapter upon any
person:
21
1. Engaged in business for solely religious, charitable, eleemosynary, or other types of
strictly nonprofit purpose who is tax exempt in such activities under the laws of the
United States and the state of Utah;
2. Engaged in a business specifically exempted from municipal taxation and fees under the
laws of the United States and the state of Utah;
3. Engaged in a business operated under the supervision of the Utah State Fair Corporation
and located exclusively at the Utah State Fair Park during the period of the annual Utah
State Fair; or
4. Not maintaining a place of business within the city who has paid a like or similar license
tax or fee to some other taxing unit within the state, and which taxing unit exempts from
its license tax or fee, by reciprocal agreement, businesses domiciled in the city and doing
business in such taxing unit.
B. Disproportionate Fees: The exemptions set forth in subsections A1, A2, and A4 of
this section shall not apply to any disproportionate fees which may be applicable under
section 5.04.070 of this chapter to a person doing business in the city, nor to any other fees or
charges which may be required under this code.
C. Reciprocal Agreement: The mayor may, with approval of the city council, enter
into reciprocal agreements with the proper officials of other taxing units, as may be deemed
equitable and proper in effecting the exemption provided for in subsection A of this section.
Nothing in this section shall preclude the city from reviewing and investigating a business
license application under such a reciprocal agreement, and requiring payment of disproportionate
fees or other fees or taxes imposed by any other provisions of the ordinances of the city, in the
discretion of the city council.
SECTION 12. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.04.116. That
Section 5.04.116 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.04.116: LICENSE; FEE COLLECTION; CIVIL ACTIONS AUTHORIZED:
A. Civil Actions: In all cases where a city ordinance requires that a license be
obtained to carry on or to engage in any business, occupation or calling within the city, and the
fee for such license is fixed by such ordinance, and the fee is not paid at the time or in the
manner provided in said ordinance, a civil action may be brought in the name of Salt Lake City
against the person failing to pay such license fee, in any court of this state having jurisdiction of
such action, to recover the fee. In any case where several or diverse amounts of license fees
remain due and unpaid by any such person, such several amounts of unpaid license fees may be
joined as separate causes of action in the same complaint in such civil actions.
22
B. Administrative Citation: Any unpaid license fees or penalties imposed pursuant to
this title shall be issued in the form of an administrative citation and subject to Chapter 2.75.
C. Other Enforcement: Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or in any
manner interfere with the enforcement of any penalty provision contained in any ordinance of the
city.
SECTION 13. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.08.230. That
Section 5.08.230 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.08.230: APPEAL PROCEDURES:
A. Civil penalties imposed pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to the procedures set
forth in Chapter 2.75.
B. It shall not be a defense to any penalty assessment that: 1) the false alarms were the result
of faulty or malfunctioning equipment; 2) the false alarms were caused by electrical surges; or 3)
the false alarms were caused by the fault of another person during noncriminal incidents.
C. The hearing officer or administrative appeals officer, as applicable, may dismiss the
penalty and release the alarm user from liability thereunder, or may reduce the penalty associated
therewith as he or she shall determine if any of the following affirmative defenses are shown:
1. The false alarm for which the penalty has been assessed did not originate at the
premises of the alarm user who has been assessed the fee;
2. The alarm for which the penalty has been assessed was, in fact, not false, but was
rather the result of an actual or attempted burglary, robbery or other emergency; or
3. The police dispatch office was notified by the permit holder or the alarm company
that the alarm was false prior to the arrival of a peace officer to the subject premises in response
to the false alarm.
SECTION 14. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.09.080. That Section
5.09.080 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.09.080: APPEALS:
A. Except as set forth below, civil penalties and assessed fees imposed pursuant to
this chapter shall be subject to the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.75. An owner may appeal the
assessment of fees to the enforcement official. An appeal fee (see the Salt Lake City consolidated
fee schedule) must accompany the appeal. Appeal fees will be returned to the owner if the appeal
is upheld. The filing of an appeal with the enforcement official stays the assessment of the fee
until the enforcement official makes a final decision. The owner shall file a written appeal to the
23
enforcement official by setting forth the reasons for the appeal within fifteen (15) days after
notice is mailed.
B. An owner to whom a notice to disconnect or deactivate a fire alarm system was
mailed, pursuant to subsection 5.09.070A of this chapter, shall be entitled to appeal the order to
the enforcement official. An appeal fee (see the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule) must
accompany the appeal. Appeal fees will be returned to the owner if the appeal is upheld. An
appeal must be made in writing stating the reason why the order to disconnect or deactivate
should be withdrawn. The appeal shall be made within fifteen (15) days after notice to
disconnect is mailed to the owner. The enforcement official or his or her designee shall review
the facts and circumstances and shall determine whether the owner has shown good cause why
the order should be withdrawn. If the enforcement official affirms the order to disconnect or
deactivate a fire alarm system, the owner shall have fifteen (15) days after the written decision is
served upon the owner to comply with the order. The appeal of an order to disconnect or
deactivate shall suspend the effective date of the order until the appeal has been acted upon by
the enforcement official.
SECTION 15. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 5.14.060.D. That
Subsection 5.14.060.D of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
D. Whenever it is necessary to make an inspection to enforce any provisions of this chapter,
or whenever the city has reasonable cause to believe a violation exists in any building or upon
any premises which makes such building or premises unsafe, dangerous or hazardous, the city's
duly authorized representative may, after making reasonable efforts to obtain permission of the
owner or other person having charge or control of the premises or dwelling unit, enter a
residential property or premises to inspect it or to perform any other duties imposed by this
chapter.
SECTION 16. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.14.120. That Section
5.14.120 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.14.120: ENFORCEMENT:
A. Enforcement of all business licensing standards, except a property’s compliance
with the self-certification standards required by Section 5.14.060, shall be pursuant to Chapters
5.02, 5.04, and 5.88.
B. Self-Certification Standard Enforcement: In addition to any other remedies
authorized by law or in this title, if the notified party fails to repair or secure the property in
question, the city may pursue any one (1) or more of the following additional remedies:
24
1. Notice Of Deficiency: The building services division may record with the Salt
Lake County Recorder's Office a notice of any conditions that violate the self-
certification standards established by the city. The notice shall be mailed to all
notified parties.
2. Criminal Action: Violations of the provisions of self- certification standards
established by the city may be punishable as a Class B misdemeanor upon
conviction.
3. Civil Action: Violations of self-certification standards established by the city may
also be enforced by injunction, mandamus, abatement, civil penalties or any other
appropriate action in law or equity.
C. Civil penalties may be imposed according to the following procedures:
1. Notice Of Violation:
a. If the housing inspector finds that any provision of this chapter is being
violated, the housing inspector shall provide a written notice to the property
owner and to any other person determined to be responsible for such violation.
The written notice shall indicate the nature of the violation and order the
action necessary to correct it. Additional written notices may be provided at
the housing inspector's discretion.
b. The written notice shall state what action the housing inspector intends to take
if the violation is not corrected. The written notice shall include information
regarding the established warning period for the indicated violations and shall
serve to start any warning periods provided in this chapter.
c. Such written notice issued by the housing inspector shall be deemed sufficient
and complete when served upon the person cited:
(1) Personally by the inspector or his or her representative; or by mailing,
postage prepaid, by certified mail or commercial courier addressed to
the person cited at the last known address appearing on the records of
the County Recorder; and
(2) By posting notice on the property where said violation(s) occurs.
d. In cases when delay in enforcement would seriously threaten the effective
enforcement of this chapter, or pose a danger to the public health, safety or
welfare, the housing inspector may seek enforcement without prior written
notice by invoking any of the fines or remedies authorized in this chapter.
e. If the violation remains uncured within five (5) days after the expiration of the
warning period, a second notice of violation shall be delivered by mail,
postage prepaid, addressed to the person cited at the last known address
appearing on the records of the County Recorder. The second notice of
25
violation shall identify the date on which the civil penalties shall begin to
accrue.
2. Amount of Penalty: Civil penalties shall accrue as follows:
a. Violations of the self-certification standards established by the city: $50.00
per violation per day. If more than 10 violations exist, the daily penalties shall
double.
3. Daily Violations: Each day a violation continues after the citation deadline shall
give rise to a separate civil penalty.
4. Compliance: Accumulation of penalties for violations, but not the obligation for
payment of penalties already accrued, shall stop upon correction of the violation.
5. Recurring Violations: In the case where a violation, which had been corrected,
reoccurs within six (6) months of the initial correction, the city will begin
enforcement of said recurring violation and penalties will begin accruing after a
ten (10) day warning period.
6. Appeals:
a. Appeals Contesting the Existence of a Violation:
(1) Appeals contesting the existence of the violation must done in
accordance with Section 18.12.030.
b. Appeals Contesting the Amount of the Penalties Imposed: any person
receiving a notice of violation may appeal the civil fines imposed, but not the
basis therefor (which must be done pursuant to Subsection 5.14.120.C.6.a), in
accordance with Section 18.12.050.
SECTION 17. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.14.130. That Section
5.14.130 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.14.130: REFUSAL TO PERMIT INSPECTIONS:
If a rental dwelling business license holder, or an agent of such business license holder, refuses
to permit the city to conduct an inspection authorized under this chapter, then the city has
adequate grounds to:
A. Revoke the rental dwelling business license that corresponds to the rental dwelling at
issue;
B. Disqualify the rental dwelling at issue from participation in the city's Landlord/Tenant
Initiative pursuant to chapter 5.15 of this title;
26
C. After making reasonable efforts to obtain permission of the owner or other person having
charge or control of the premises or dwelling unit, enter a rental dwelling at issue to inspect it or
to otherwise perform duties imposed by this chapter; and/or
D. Pursue any and all other remedies available to the city.
SECTION 18. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.15.070. That Section
5.15.070 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.15.070: DISQUALIFICATION:
A. License Office Duties: If the License Office disqualifies an applicant from participating
in the Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program or concludes that an owner has violated the provisions
of this chapter or the owner's rental dwelling management agreement with the city, the License
Supervisor shall:
1. Notify the rental dwelling owner of the violation and the basis for such action by
either:
a. Certified mail or commercial courier;
b. Personal service; or
c. Mailing a copy of the notice to the rental dwelling owner and posting a
copy of the same notice at the rental dwelling; and
2. Assess the rental dwelling owner for any disproportionate rental fees
corresponding to such rental dwelling that were reduced under this chapter for the currently
applicable license period.
B. Appeal: A rental dwelling owner or agent who receives a notification and
assessment as provided in subsection A of this section may appeal such action in accordance
with the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.75.
C. No Partial Reduction if Disqualified: If the owner of a rental dwelling is
disqualified from the Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program with respect to a particular rental
dwelling during any portion of the licensing period for which a reduction was provided, the
rental dwelling at issue, shall be disqualified from the program, and the disproportionate rental
fee reduction that corresponds to such rental dwelling shall be disallowed for the entirety of the
term of such rental dwelling business license. The rental dwelling owner shall pay the full
disproportionate rental fee for such rental dwelling for that year.
D. Readmission: After disqualification, the rental dwelling at issue may qualify for
readmission to the Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program in the next licensing year only if the
rental dwelling owner has corrected the problems leading to disqualification and has paid all
amounts due in the prior year.
27
SECTION 19. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.16.100. That Section
5.16.100 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.16.100: AUCTIONEER'S LICENSE; DENIAL OR REVOCATION CONDITIONS:
An auctioneer's license may be revoked by the city license supervisor, or an application for
issuance or renewal of such license may be refused by the city license supervisor.
A. Grounds for Revocation or Denial.
1. The applicant or license holder has committed any of the violations set forth in
Section 5.02.250 of this title, or its successor; or
2. The application of the applicant or license holder contains any false, fraudulent or
misleading material statements; or
3. The applicant or license holder has made any false, fraudulent or misleading
material statement in the course of conducting an auction sale of, or in offering for sale at
auction, any real or personal property (goods, wares or merchandise) in the city; or
4. The applicant or license holder has perpetrated a fraud upon any person, whether
or not such fraud was perpetrated in the conduct of an auction in the city; or
5. The applicant or license holder has violated any of the statutes of the state relating
to auctions or auctioneers; or
6. The applicant or license holder has conducted an auction sale in the city or offered
for sale at an auction in the city, any real or personal property (goods, wares or
merchandise) in an unlawful manner, or in such a manner as to constitute a breach of the
peace or a menace to the health, safety or general welfare of the public.
B. Such determination may be appealed in accordance with Chapter 2.75.
SECTION 20. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.16.110. That
Section 5.16.110 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed in its entirety.
5.16.110: RESERVED
SECTION 21. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.40.120. That Section
5.40.120 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
28
5.40.120: LICENSE; REVOCATION CONDITIONS:
Any license granted or extended under this chapter may be revoked or suspended pursuant to the
procedures provided in Chapter 5.02 for any of the following reasons:
A. Any misrepresentation made in obtaining a license;
B. A conviction of, or any alleged but as yet unresolved charge that licensee has committed
a crime involving moral turpitude;
C. The violation of any provision of this chapter;
D. A showing of any evidence which provides reasonable grounds to believe that the
licensee has committed or aided in the preparation for or allowed his records, tools, equipment,
facilities or supplies to be used for the commission of any crime.
SECTION 22. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.040. That Section 5.51.040
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed.
5.51.040: RESERVED
SECTION 23. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.050. That Section 5.51.050
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed.
5.51.050: RESERVED
SECTION 24. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.060. That Section 5.51.060
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed.
5.51.060: RESERVED
SECTION 25. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.070. That Section 5.51.070
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed.
5.51.070: RESERVED
29
SECTION 26. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.080. That Section 5.51.080
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed.
5.51.080: RESERVED
SECTION 27. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.090. That Section 5.51.090
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed.
5.51.090: RESERVED
SECTION 28. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.61.380. That Section
5.61.380 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.61.380: APPEAL PROCEDURES:
If the license is denied or approved with qualifications, or if a notice of suspension, revocation or
citation of a civil fine is imposed, the applicant or licensee may challenge that adverse action
pursuant to the processes set forth in Chapter 2.75.
SECTION 29. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.63.065. That Section
5.63.065 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.63.065: DRIVER'S QUALIFICATIONS:
A. Except as hereinafter set forth, no license or renewal of a pedicab driver license shall be
issued to any of the following persons:
1. Any person under the age of eighteen (18) years;
2. Any person who is currently required to register with the sex and kidnap offender registry
pursuant to title 77, chapter 41 of the Utah Code Annotated, or its successor;
3. Any person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, narcotic or
dangerous drugs, a felony conviction for an offense against a person or property, unless a
period of not less than five (5) years shall have elapsed since the date of conviction or the
date of release from confinement for such offense, whichever is later;
4. Any person who has been convicted of driving a vehicle recklessly within the five (5)
years immediately preceding application for a license;
30
5. Any person who has been convicted of driving a vehicle while under the influence of
alcohol or a controlled substance, or of being in or about a vehicle while under the
influence of alcohol or a controlled substance with the intent of driving such vehicle,
within the five (5) years immediately preceding application for a license;
6. Any person who has been convicted of two (2) or more felonies.
SECTION 30. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.63.070. That Section
5.63.070 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.63.070: APPEAL:
Any license that is suspended, revoked, or associated application rejected, the applicant/licensee
shall be entitled to appeal such determination in accordance with Chapter 2.75.
SECTION 31. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.64.750. That Section
5.64.750 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.64.750: SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION OF LICENSE:
A. In addition to any penalties that may be imposed, any license issued under this article
may be suspended or revoked for any of the following reasons:
1. Fraud, misrepresentation, or knowingly false statement contained in the application
for the license;
2. Fraud, misrepresentation, or knowingly false statement in the course of carrying on
the business of vending;
3. Conducting the business of vending in any manner contrary to the conditions of the
license;
4. Conducting the business of vending in such a manner as to create a public nuisance;
cause a breach of the peace; constitute a danger to the public health, safety, welfare,
or morals; or interfere with the rights of property owners; or
5. Cancellation of Utah Department of Agriculture authorization, or of the required
authorization of any successor agency, for a food or beverage vending unit due to
uncorrected health or sanitation violations.
B. Any suspension of revocation of a license under this article shall be subject to
Chapters 5.02 and 2.75.
31
C. If the city revokes a vending license or permit, the fee already paid for the license
or permit shall be forfeited. A person whose license or permit has been revoked under this
section may not apply for a new license for a period of one year from the date that the revocation
took effect.
SECTION 32. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.64.760. That Section 5.64.760
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed.
5.64.760: RESERVED
SECTION 33. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.65.190. That Section
5.65.190 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.65.190: DENIAL, SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF BUSINESS LICENSE:
A. The Business License Administrator may revoke or suspend the business license
or deny renewal thereof, of any person to conduct business on the sidewalks of Salt Lake City if
he/she finds:
1. That such person has violated or failed to meet any of the provisions of this
chapter;
2. That there are grounds for denial, suspension or revocation as set forth in
section 5.02.250 of this title, or its successor section, or in any other city
ordinance or State or Federal law or regulation;
3. That such person has been convicted within the last seven (7) years of any crime
involving moral turpitude, narcotic or dangerous drugs, or offenses against a
person or property;
4. Any required license or permit has been suspended, revoked or canceled; or
5. The permittee does not have a currently effective insurance policy in the
minimum amount provided in this chapter; or
6. That the permittee has abandoned the use of the permit operating location for the
conducting of business. The failure of a permittee to vend from a vending cart
within the permittee's permit operating location for thirty (30) continuous
calendar days or more, except during the period of December, January, and
February, shall constitute abandonment.
B. A denial, revocation, or suspension of a license shall be conducted pursuant to the
procedures set forth in Chapter 5.02.
32
SECTION 34. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.71.010. That Section
5.71.010 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.71.010: DEFINITIONS:
The following words and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings defined
and set forth in this section:
AIRPORT SHARED RIDE SERVICE: Ground transportation provided by an authorized ground
transportation business contracted through the department of airports to provide on demand
shared ride service to and from the Salt Lake City International Airport.
AIRPORT SHARED RIDE VEHICLE: Any authorized ground transportation vehicle operating
under contract with the department of airports to provide airport shared ride service to and from
the Salt Lake City International Airport.
APPLICANT: An individual who has submitted an application to the department to obtain a
ground transportation vehicle operator's badge pursuant to article VII of this chapter.
AUTHORIZED GROUND TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS: Any business operating any
ground transportation vehicle, which has a current, valid business license as required by the city
and which:
A. Registers the business in accordance with the requirements established by the
department, and
B. Is current with all fees or charges imposed by the department and city.
AUTOMOBILE: Any motor vehicle with passenger seating for five (5) persons or less, not
including the driver.
BUS: Any licensed motor vehicle operated on the streets and highways for hire on a scheduled or
nonscheduled basis with a seating capacity of twenty five (25) or more passengers, not including
the driver.
BUSINESS: A voluntary association legally formed and organized to carry on a business in Utah
in the legal name of the association, including, without limitation, a corporation, limited liability
company, partnership, or sole proprietorship.
BUSINESS LICENSING OFFICE: The department of finance of Salt Lake City Corporation, or
its successor.
CERTIFICATE: A certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the city.
CIVIL NOTICE: A written notice of a ground transportation violation as provided under this
chapter.
33
COMMENT FORM OR FORM: The form described in section 5.71.270 of this chapter, or its
successor.
COURTESY VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle regularly operated on Salt Lake City streets for
transportation of customers and/or baggage without making a specific separate charge to the
passenger for such transportation.
DEPARTMENT: The Salt Lake City Department of Airports or such other city department or
division as may be designated by the mayor to have responsibility for the enforcement of this
chapter.
DEPARTMENT AUTOMATED VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION (AVI) TAG: An electronic
transponder used to identify vehicles and provide the department with vehicle data and billing
information.
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: The director of the department designated by the mayor to have
responsibility for the enforcement of this chapter or the authorized designee of such director.
DEPARTMENT INSPECTION: An inspection of a ground transportation vehicle by the
department to verify that the vehicle meets the standards set by the department director,
department rules and regulations, applicable contracts, and applicable city ordinances, including,
without limitation, the exterior and interior of the vehicle and all associated vehicle licensing,
safety, and insurance requirements.
DEPARTMENT INSPECTION SEAL: A sticker or seal issued by the department to signify that
a ground transportation vehicle has passed the required department inspection. These department
inspection seals are nontransferable and no ground transportation vehicle may be operated
without such seal.
DEPARTMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS: Rules and regulations developed and adopted
by the department director to govern commercial ground transportation operations within the
city.
FIXED SCHEDULE: Ground transportation service operating on a regular time schedule
previously announced as to time of departure and arrival between definitely established and
previously announced points along definitely established and previously announced routes
regardless of whether passengers or freight are to be carried.
GROUND TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS: Any business operating any ground transportation
vehicle.
GROUND TRANSPORTATION SERVICE: The transportation of passengers by a ground
transportation business.
GROUND TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle used for the transportation of
persons using Salt Lake City streets for commercial purposes, regardless of whether a fee or fare
is collected.
HOLDER: A person to whom a certificate of public convenience and necessity has been issued.
34
HOTEL VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle regularly operated by a ground transportation business
under contract to or directly by a motel, hotel, or other lodging business, to provide
transportation of customers and/or baggage for the contracted establishment for which
transportation the customer is charged a separate fee or fare, and which is subject to a contract
filed with the department providing for operating the vehicle.
LIMOUSINE: Any vehicle described by its manufacturer or aftermarket manufacturer as a
limousine or a luxury vehicle, with a driver furnished, who is dressed in professional business
attire or a chauffeur's uniform.
MINIBUS: Any motor vehicle with a passenger seating capacity of sixteen (16) to twenty four
(24) persons, not including the driver.
NAMED PARTY: The driver, vehicle owner, or authorized ground transportation business
named in a civil notice issued by the city.
ON DEMAND AIRPORT SERVICE OR ON DEMAND SERVICE: Transportation provided by
an authorized ground transportation business which is not "scheduled service" or "prearranged
service" as defined in this section.
OPERATOR: Persons engaged in the ground transportation business.
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: Those persons who are not acutely ill, who do not require the
services of an ambulance, and who need or desire special transportation equipment or
accommodation for physical or mental infirmities.
PREARRANGED SERVICE: Transportation provided by an authorized ground transportation
business from points within the city to destinations within the city, or beyond, for which the
authorized ground transportation business providing such transportation has recorded the name
or description of prospective passenger and the date and time of the request for transportation at
least thirty (30) minutes prior to the transporting of the passenger by such vehicle.
SCHEDULED SERVICE: Transportation provided by an authorized ground transportation
business on a fixed schedule posted with and approved by the department in advance of such
transportation.
SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle for hire, other than an airport
shared ride vehicle, ambulance, or taxicab, which vehicle is designed, equipped, and used for the
transportation of persons with disabilities.
SPECIALTY VEHICLES: Any vehicles that are unique in their design, or built for a specific
purpose, including, but are not limited to, special conversion vehicles and classic or collector
automobiles, but excluding special transportation vehicles.
STARTER: A person appointed by and representing a ground transportation business who is
responsible for managing the coordination of vehicles and passenger transportation for that
business.
TAXI STAND: A public place alongside the curb of a street, or elsewhere in the city, which has
been designated by the mayor or the mayor's designee as reserved for the use of taxicabs
35
available for hire by passengers, including places otherwise marked as freight zones or other
parking restricted zones if designated for use of taxicabs during specified times.
TAXICAB: A motor vehicle used in the on demand, for hire transportation of passengers or
baggage over public streets and not operated over a fixed route or upon a fixed schedule, but
which is subject for contract hire by persons desiring special trips from one point to another, as
provided under chapter 5.72 of this title, or its successor chapter, and authorized to operate in
Salt Lake City by contract with the department.
TERMINAL OF TRANSPORTATION: A facility or location having the primary purpose of
facilitating ground transportation services, such as, but not limited to, the Salt Lake City
Intermodal Hub.
TRAILER: A wheeled vehicle designed to be pulled by a motor vehicle for the transportation of
freight, luggage, or other items.
VAN: Any licensed motor vehicle other than those designated as a limousine with a passenger
seating capacity of six (6) to twelve (12), not including the driver.
SECTION 35. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 5.71.300.B. That
Subsection 5.71.300.B of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.71.300: CIVIL PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT:
B. The department may revoke, suspend, or deny the application for or a renewal of
an operator's badge, department automated vehicle identification tag or department inspection
seal for violations of any provision of this title, department rules and regulations, or other
applicable law. Such action may be appealed in accordance with Chapter 2.75.
SECTION 36. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.71.310. That Section
5.71.310 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.71.310: ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES; CIVIL NOTICE OF GROUND
TRANSPORTATION VIOLATION:
Civil notices under this chapter may be contested pursuant to the procedures and processes
governing the adjudication of civil notices of violation as set forth in Chapter 2.75 or its
successor.
36
SECTION 37. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.71.310. That Section
5.71.320 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed in its entirety:
5.71.320: EXPEDITED APPEAL OF EXCLUSION:
Any named party who is excluded from pursuing commercial activities under this chapter , and
has not had a hearing before the Ground Transportation Appeal Committee regarding such
exclusion as provided for in this chapter, may request an expedited appeal of the action that
resulted in such exclusion. Such appeal shall be requested in writing by the party so excluded to
the department. The department shall promptly investigate the facts relating to such exclusion. If
the evidence indicates such exclusion is improper under this chapter, the Department Director
may reverse the action that resulted in such exclusion. If the Department Director does not
reverse such action, the action resulting in such exclusion shall be heard and determined by the
Ground Transportation Appeal Committee in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. If a
preponderance of the evidence indicates such exclusion is proper under this chapter the Ground
Transportation Appeal Committee shall uphold such exclusion.
SECTION 38. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.72.005. That Section
5.72.005 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.72.005: DEFINITIONS:
The following words and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings defined
and set forth in this section:
BUSINESS: A voluntary association legally formed and organized to carry on a business in Utah
in the legal name of the association, including, without limitation, a corporation, limited liability
company, partnership, or sole proprietorship.
CERTIFICATE: A certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the city.
CITY: The governmental institution and landmass contained within the boundaries of Salt Lake
City, Utah.
CIVIL NOTICE: A written notice of a ground transportation violation as provided under this
chapter.
CLEARED: That condition of a taximeter when it is inoperative with respect to all fare
registration and all cumulative fare and extras charges have been set to zero dollars ($0.00).
CONCESSIONAIRE: A person or entity with whom the department of airports has contracted to
provide taxicab services.
37
DEPARTMENT: The Salt Lake City Department of Airports or such other city department or
division as may be designated by the mayor to have responsibility for the enforcement of this
chapter.
DEPARTMENT CONTRACT: A valid, existing, and current contract negotiated and approved
by the department for providing taxicab or other services within the corporate boundaries of Salt
Lake City, including the airport.
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: The director of the department designated by the mayor to have
responsibility for the enforcement of this chapter or the authorized designee of such director.
DEPARTMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS: Rules and regulations developed and adopted
by the department director to govern ground transportation service and businesses within the
city.
EXTRAS: Charges to be paid by a customer or passenger in addition to the fare.
FACE: That side of a taximeter upon which passenger or customer charges for hire of a taxicab
are indicated.
FARE: That portion of the charge for hire of a taxicab which is automatically calculated by the
taximeter through the operation of the mileage and time mechanism.
HAIL A TAXICAB: The act of a person to call out for, or to signal for, an in service taxicab that
is not already engaged in transport of passengers to respond to the person's location for hiring
and transport of persons or property.
HIRED: The button on the face of a taximeter, which when activated places the taximeter in
operation, signifying the start of a billing process for the person(s) engaging the use of the
taxicab.
IN SERVICE: A taxicab that is in use on the streets of the city, with a driver, and available for
the transportation of passengers for hire.
PERSON: An individual, a corporation or other legal entity, a partnership, and any incorporated
association.
TAXI STAND: A public place alongside the curb of a street, or elsewhere in the city, which has
been designated by the mayor or the mayor's designee as reserved for the use of taxicabs
available for hire by passengers, including places otherwise marked as freight zones or other
parking restricted zones if designated for use of taxicabs during specified times.
TAXICAB: A motor vehicle with a seating capacity of five (5) passengers or less, not including
the driver, or a van with a passenger seating capacity of six (6) to twelve (12), not including the
driver, used in the on demand, for hire transportation of passengers or baggage over the public
streets and not operated over a fixed route or upon a fixed schedule, but which is subject for
contract hire by persons desiring special trips from one point to another and authorized to operate
in Salt Lake City by contract with the department.
TAXIMETER: A meter instrument or electronic device attached to a taxicab which measures
mileage by the distance driven and the waiting time upon which the fare is based, and which
38
automatically calculates, at a predetermined rate or rates, and registers, the charge for hire of a
taxicab.
WAITING TIME: The time when a taxicab is not in motion, from the time of hiring by a
passenger to the time of discharge of passenger(s).
SECTION 39. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 5.72.855.B. That
Subsection 5.72.855.B of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
B. The department may revoke, suspend, or deny renewal of an operator's badge,
department automated vehicle identification tag or department inspection seal for violations of
any provision of this title, department rules and regulations, or other applicable law. Such action
may be appealed in accordance with Chapter 2.75.
SECTION 40. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.72.890. That Section
5.72.890 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.72.890: ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES; CIVIL NOTICE OF GROUND
TRANSPORTATION VIOLATION:
Civil notices under this chapter may be contested pursuant to the procedures and processes
governing the adjudication of civil notices of violation as set forth in Chapter 2.75 or its
successor.
SECTION 41. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.72.900. That Section
5.72.900 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed as follows:
5.72.900: EXPEDITED APPEAL OF EXCLUSION:
Any named party who is excluded from pursuing commercial activities under this chapter, and
has not had a hearing before the Ground Transportation Appeal Committee regarding such
exclusion as provided for in this chapter, such party may request an expedited appeal of the
action that resulted in such exclusion. Such appeal shall be requested in writing by the party so
excluded to the department. The department shall promptly investigate the facts relating to such
exclusion. If the evidence indicates such exclusion is improper under this chapter, the
Department Director may reverse the action that resulted in such exclusion. If the Department
Director does not reverse such action, the action resulting in such exclusion shall be heard and
determined by the Ground Transportation Appeal Committee in accordance with the provisions
39
of this chapter. If a preponderance of the evidence indicates such exclusion is proper under this
chapter the Ground Transportation Appeal Committee shall uphold such exclusion.
SECTION 42. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.74.170. That Section
5.74.170 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.74.170: LICENSE; REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION; CONDITIONS:
A. The licensee shall be responsible for the operation of the licensed premises in
conformance with this code. The city may revoke or suspend the license or licenses covering the
businesses conducted on such premises, regardless of the ownership thereof, for the following
violations:
1. A violation or conviction of Utah Code section 76-9-301.8, 76-9-702, or 76-10-1206;
2. A violation of any provision set forth in this chapter;
3. A violation or conviction of any ordinance referred to in
section 5.74.040 or 5.74.070 of this chapter; or a violation or conviction of
section 5.28.060 of this title or section 11.16.100 of this code, or their successors;
4. Violations or convictions of any material misrepresentation, or for any fraud
perpetrated on the licensing authority through application or operation of such
business;
5. A violation of any law of the state, or ordinance of the city which affects the health,
welfare and safety of its residents, and which violation occurred as a part of the main
business activity licensed under this chapter and not incidental thereto;
6. A violation or conviction of showing motion pictures for which the establishment is
not properly licensed as required by this chapter.
B. The foregoing provisions of this section, or its successor, notwithstanding,
nothing herein shall authorize a revocation or suspension of any license of any theater, motion
picture house or concert hall based on a prior conviction or violation of exhibiting or distributing
obscene material.
SECTION 43. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.74.180. That Section
5.74.180 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.74.180: LICENSE; SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION; PROCEDURES:
40
Any suspension or revocation of a license pursuant to this chapter shall be conducted as provided
in Chapter 5.02 of this title or its successor. Any decision to revoke or suspend a license shall be
stayed until the time period for appealing the decision has expired or a decision on any appeal is
issued pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2.75.
SECTION 44. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.88.030. That Section
5.88.030 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.88.030: ENFORCEMENT INVOLVING NOTICES OF VIOLATION:
A. Notices of violation shall be adjudicated as civil violations in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Chapter 2.75.
B. If the alleged ordinance violation involves an ordinance for which a more specific
enforcement provision is set forth therein, then the more specific enforcement provisions and
processes set forth in the chapter that corresponds to the violation shall supersede the provisions
of this section.
SECTION 45. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.88.040. That Section
5.88.040 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.88.040: PENALTIES FOR CIVIL VIOLATIONS:
A. The following penalties shall be imposed where a notice of violation is issued for
a violation of the city ordinances set forth in this title:
1. Where a notice of violation has been issued for a first violation of a city
ordinance, such notice of violation shall constitute a written warning.
2. Where a notice of violation has been issued for a second violation of a city
ordinance, the recipient of such notice of violation shall pay a civil penalty of two
hundred fifty dollars ($250.00).
3. Where a notice of violation has been issued for a third violation of a city
ordinance, the recipient of such notice of violation shall pay a civil penalty of five
hundred dollars ($500.00).
4. Where a notice of violation has been issued for a fourth or subsequent violation of
a city ordinance, the recipient of such notice of violation shall:
a. Pay a civil penalty of five hundred dollars ($500.00); and
41
b. Shall be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year from the date on
which the notice of violation was issued.
5. If, during the period of probation specified in subsection A4b of this section, a
notice of violation is issued for a violation of the same ordinance that resulted in
such probation, then:
a. The recipient of such notice of violation shall pay a civil penalty of five
hundred dollars ($500.00);
b. The business license of the recipient of such notice of violation shall be
revoked; and
c. The recipient of such notice of violation may not reapply for a new business
license for at least six (6) months from the date of revocation.
B. Any reference to second, third, fourth, and subsequent violations refers to repeat
violations of the same city ordinance that occur within a twenty four (24) month period. Unless a
specified citation interval is provided by ordinance related to the specific violation or license at
issue, then citations for ongoing violations may be issued every fifteen (15) calendar days.
C. The city may not revoke a business license pursuant to subsection A5b of this
section without satisfying the due process requirements set forth in Section 5.02.250.
D. If the alleged ordinance violation involves an ordinance for which a more specific
enforcement provision or penalty is set forth therein, then the more specific enforcement
provisions, processes, and penalties set forth in the chapter that corresponds to the violation shall
supersede the provisions of this section.
SECTION 46. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 8.04.020. That Section
8.04.020 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
8.04.020: ANIMAL SERVICES:
Animal services may be provided through a legally executed agreement, which includes the
authority and power to enforce this title. Alternatively, the city may elect to provide its own
animal services without entering into a contract with an outside provider. In the event that animal
control services are provided by another political subdivision, the duly enacted ordinances and
regulations of that political subdivision shall apply and supersede the requirements of this Title.
SECTION 47. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 8.15.025. That Section
8.15.025 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
42
8.15.025: NOTICES OF VIOLATION:
A. Notices of violations shall be adjudicated as civil violations in the small claims court in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.75.
SECTION 48. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 9.08.115.B. That
Subsection 9.08.115.B of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as
follows:
B. Any violation of this chapter shall constitute a civil violation and shall be handled as
provided by Chapter 2.75. Civil penalties shall be imposed as follows:
Section Of This Chapte Penalt
9.08.030G $50.00 per violatio
9.08.090 and 9.08.095 $25.00 for the first citation
$50.00 for the second citation within 6
months of the first citation
$100.00 for the third citation within 6 months
of the first citatio
SECTION 49. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 11.14.050. That Section
11.14.050 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
11.14.050: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS:
Service fees and costs imposed pursuant to this chapter shall be adjudicated as civil violations in
accordance with Chapter 2.75.
SECTION 50. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 12.24.016. That Section
12.24.016 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
12.24.016: RESERVED
SECTION 51. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 12.24.018. That Section
12.24.018 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
43
12.24.018: RESERVED
SECTION 52. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 12.56.570. That Section
12.56.570 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
12.56.570: UNAUTHORIZED USE OF STREETS; APPEAL PROCEDURES:
A. Any person having received a citation as to unauthorized use of streets, or the owner of
any vehicle employed in such use, may appeal such notice pursuant to the procedures set forth in
Chapter 2.75.
B. If the hearing officer or administrative appeals officer, as applicable, finds that an
unauthorized use occurred but one or more of the defenses set forth in this section is applicable,
they may dismiss the notice of unauthorized use and release the owner or driver from liability
thereunder. Such defenses are:
1. At the time of the receipt of the notice, possession of the subject vehicle had been
acquired by a third party in violation of the criminal laws of the State;
2. If the notice of unauthorized use of streets alleges a violation of any ordinance
pertaining to a parking meter, such meter was mechanically malfunctioning to the
extent that its reliability is questionable;
3. Compliance with the subject ordinances would have presented an imminent and
irreparable injury to persons or property;
4. Citations for overtime parking in metered or time restricted zones received by a city
employee or guest while on official Salt Lake City business will be dismissed upon
written request from the applicable department director or designee on official
letterhead or by electronic mail. The request must be made within ten (10) days of
receipt of the citation and must include a brief description of the reason for the
request, and be submitted to the Salt Lake City Corporation director of revenue
operations. Parking violations other than overtime parking and meter violations will
not be dismissed in this manner;
5. Unlimited time parking by exempt vehicles will be allowed at city meters and time
restricted locations. In order to qualify, the exempt vehicle must either be a marked
official vehicle pursuant to Section 12.56.590, or it must be included in the city’s
exempt database. Requests for dismissals of other parking violations may be
considered and should be submitted to the Salt Lake City Corporation director of
revenue operations;
6. If the owner of the vehicle is deceased but was living when the ticket was issued;
7. If the vehicle was sold by a third party and the citation was issued prior to the sale,
provided the sale is reported to the DMV and the bill of sale is submitted within
twenty (20) days of receipt of the parking citation.
44
C. If the hearing officer or administrative appeals officer, as applicable, finds that an
unauthorized use occurred but one or more of the defenses set forth in this section is applicable,
they may reduce the penalty associated therewith, but in no event shall such penalty be reduced
below the sum of ten dollars ($10.00). Such defenses are:
1. At the time of receipt of the notice, possession of the subject vehicle had been
acquired by another party pursuant to a written lease agreement or similar written
agreement;
2. The subject vehicle was mechanically incapable of being moved from such location;
provided, however, such defense shall not apply to any vehicle which remains at such
location in excess of six (6) hours;
3. Any markings, signs or other indicia of parking use regulation were not clearly visible
or comprehensible;
4. At the time of the notice of violation a responsible person receiving such notice of
violation had, but failed to properly display, a special disability group license plate or
placard that was valid and relevant to the violation for which the citation was issued;
5. At the time a citation issued for failure to display a residential parking permit a valid
residential parking permit existed, but such permit was not properly displayed;
6. Such other mitigating circumstances as have been approved by the parking civil
manager.
D. If the penalty imposed pursuant to this chapter remains unsatisfied after forty (40) days
from the receipt of the citation, the city may use such lawful means as are available to collect
such penalty, including costs. Such collection efforts shall be stayed while an appeal is pending
before a hearing officer or administrative appeals officer pursuant to Chapter 2.75.
SECTION 53. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 14.20.110. That Section
14.20.110 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
14.20.110: FAILURE TO REMOVE HAIL, SNOW, ICE AND SLEET; CIVIL
PENALTIES:
A. Any owner, occupant, lessor, or agent of property abutting a paved city sidewalk who
fails to comply with Section 14.20.070 of this chapter commits a civil violation. Such violation
shall be handled in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.75, or its successor.
B. The civil penalty for violation of this section shall be as set forth below:
1. For any property with street front footage of two hundred feet (200') or less:
a. Fifty dollars ($50.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet is not
removed from sidewalks within twenty four (24) hours;
45
b. Seventy five dollars ($75.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet is not
removed from sidewalks within forty eight (48) hours; and
c. One hundred dollars ($100.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet is
not removed from sidewalks within seventy two (72) hours.
2. For any property with street front footage of more than two hundred feet (200'):
a. One hundred dollars ($100.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet is
not removed from sidewalks within twenty four (24) hours;
b. One hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet
is not removed from sidewalks within forty eight (48) hours; and
c. Two hundred dollars ($200.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet is
not removed from sidewalks within seventy two (72) hours.
SECTION 54. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 14.32.625. That Section
14.32.625 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
14.32.625: APPEAL OF SUSPENSION, REVOCATION, OR STOP ORDER:
Any suspension or revocation or stop order by the city engineer may be appealed in accordance
with the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.75.
SECTION 55. Amending the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. That the Salt
Lake City consolidated fee schedule shall be, and hereby is, amended, in pertinent part, to reflect
the fees set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and that a copy of the amended Salt Lake City
consolidated fee schedule shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website.
SECTION 56. Effective Date. That this ordinance shall become effective on the date of
publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _______ day of
________________, 2025.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
46
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________________.
Mayor’s Action: _____Approved. _____Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _______ of 2025.
Published: ____________________.
Ordinance Establishing Uniform Administrative Hearing Process_v8
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: ___________________________
By: ____________________________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
July 23, 2025
GENERAL FUNDS MISCELLANEOUS FEES
For questions regarding General Funds Miscellaneous Fees contact: TBD
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Collection Fee $64 3.16.050
Administrative Enforcement Hearing Fee $81 2.75.170
Legal Fee $248 2.75.040
Credit Card Use Surcharge 2.4%
This fee will be added at the register to all qualifying credit card
transactions described in Section 3.16.060 of the Salt Lake City Code.
**Max Galaxy, Sportsman software and Library Parking Garage does
not assess the credit card charge**
3.16.060
Pedestrian Crosswalk Flags
Plain Orange Non-Reflective Crosswalk Flag $2.10 Sponsor chooses which type of flag to use and is responsible for keeping the flags in stock. No fees assessed for flags sponsored in school zones.12.76.100
Orange Reflective Crosswalk Flag $2.10
Sponsor chooses which type of flag to use and is responsible for
keeping the flags in stock. No fees assessed for flags sponsored in
school zones.
12.76.100
Return Check or EFT Transfer $20 2.61.030
Loan Application Fee $120 Each 03.16.005
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 1
Exhibit A
or fine amount, whichever is less
This page has intentionally been left blank
1
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1
No. _____ of 2025 2
3
(Providing a general administrative hearing process for violations of the Salt Lake City Code) 4
5
An ordinance amending Titles 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 16 of the Salt Lake City Code to 6
establish a uniform administrative hearing process for civil violations of city code. 7
WHEREAS, a petition was submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall to amend portions of 8
Salt Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to an administrative hearing process for the 9
resolution of administrative citations; and 10
WHEREAS, the city has a significant interest in the timely and effective resolution of 11
appeals of administrative citations in a manner that provides due process of law; and 12
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the Salt Lake City Council has 13
determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 14
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, 15
as follows: 16
SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.59. That Chapter 2.59 17
of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 18
19
2.59.010: PURPOSE: 20
21
It is the purpose of this chapter to provide for the issuance of city subpoenas for any reason to the 22
full extent authorized by state law, including, but not limited to, Utah Code Ssection 10-3-610, 23
Utah Code Annotated. 24
25
2.59.020: EXECUTIVE BRANCH SUBPOENAS: 26
27
The executive branch may authorize subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses located 28
within the state to give testimony or to produce records and documents or other items. 29
30
2
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
A. A subpoena may be authorized upon signature of the mayor or his or her designee or by a 31
department head. 32
33
B. All executive subpoenas must also be endorsed by the city attorney, deputy city attorney, 34
or any assistant city attorney. The attorney's signature shall be an affirmation the subpoena is an 35
appropriate exercise of administrative power prior to the recorder issuing the subpoena. 36
37
2.59.030: LEGISLATIVE BRANCH SUBPOENAS: 38
39
The city council may authorize a subpoena upon a majority vote of the council. Such subpoenas 40
shall be signed by any member of the council voting to authorize the subpoena. Upon such vote 41
and signature, the subpoena shall be reviewed and approved "as to form" by the city attorney, 42
deputy city attorney or any assistant city attorney and shall then be issued by the city recorder. 43
44
2.59.035: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICERLAW JUDGE SUBPOENAS: 45
46
A. A city appointed administrative appeals officer may issue subpoenas in connection with 47
administrative hearings conducted pursuant to Sections 2.75.190 and 2.24.050 and Chapters 48
21A.16 and 21A.18 to compel the attendance of persons or the production of nonprivileged 49
and/or nonconfidential documents at such proceedings. 50
51
B. The administrative appeals officer shall not issue the subpoena if (1) the documents or 52
testimony sought by the subpoena are not relevant, (2) the documents or testimony sought by the 53
subpoena are not helpful to decide the issues at the hearing considering the significance and 54
nature of the factual disputes at issue in the hearing, (3) the subpoena is intended to harass or 55
annoy any party or the subject thereof, or (4) the subpoena is requested for the purpose of delay 56
or to cause an undue burden. 57
58
C. The administrative appeals officer shall consider objections by the parties and any non-59
party subject to a subpoena pursuant to the applicable policies and procedures for such 60
administrative hearing. 61
62
D. The administrative appeals officer shall comply with the procedures for issuance of a 63
subpoena as set forth in the applicable policies and procedures for such administrative hearing. 64
65
2.59.040: ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS: 66
67
A. All cityexecutive or legislative subpoenas shall be issued by the city recorder's office. 68
The recorder's office shall keep a record containing: 1) the date of issuance, 2) the matter for 69
which the subpoena was issued, 3) returns of all subpoenas, and 4) at whose request the 70
subpoena was issued. 71
72
B. All executive or legislative subpoenas shall be issued with an original and a copy. The 73
original, together with proof of service, shall be returned to the recorder's office and a copy left 74
with the person upon whom it is served. 75
76
3
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
C. The subpoena shall be issued in the name of the city and shall be entitled "city subpoena" 77
and shall state whether it is before the legislative branch or the executive branch. The subpoena 78
shall state the title of the matter being heard and shall command each person to whom it is 79
directed to attend and give testimony and/or produce records or documents at a time and place 80
specified in the body of the subpoena. 81
82
D. Nothing in this section shall limit the city's authority to issue subpoenas in criminal 83
matters as provided by law. 84
85
2.59.050: PRODUCTION OF RECORDS OR DOCUMENTS: RESERVED 86
87
Any party may subpoena public records or documents from the city. No party, including the city, 88
may require documents to be produced which are confidential in accordance with state law, or 89
city policy or procedure, or which are private papers of the government. Police internal affairs 90
files are confidential and private files and may not be produced. Ongoing criminal investigations 91
are also confidential and private files and may not be produced. 92
93
2.59.060: SERVICE OF CITY SUBPOENAS: 94
95
A. Service of city subpoenas may be made by any city employee or by any person who 96
meets the requirements of rule 4 of the Utah rules of civil procedure. 97
98
B. Service shall be in accord with rule 4 of the Utah rRules of cCivil pProcedure. 99
100
2.59.070: SUBPOENAS BY OTHER PARTIES:RESERVED 101
102
Any person who is subject to an administrative hearing before the city may, upon the payment of 103
the costs of the recorder for issuing subpoenas, have the city recorder's office issue subpoenas to 104
compel the attendance of persons or the production of nonprivileged and/or nonconfidential 105
documents at the hearing. The person shall make his/her own arrangements for service of the 106
subpoena. 107
108
2.59.080: PAYMENT OF SUBPOENA COSTS: 109
110
A. Cost Oof Subpoenas Issued Oon Behalf Oof Tthe City: All costs of service and witness 111
fees for subpoenas issued on behalf of the city shall be paid by the department (including the 112
mayor's office or the city council) on whose behalf the subpoena was issued, unless or until a 113
fund is created to pay for these costs. These costs shall include witness fees and mileage. 114
115
B. Subpoenas Issued Oon Behalf Oof Other Parties: All costs of service and witness fees for 116
subpoenas issued on behalf of any person other than the city shall be paid by the person 117
requesting issuance of the subpoena. 118
119
C. City Documents: Any party requesting city production of city documents shall pay all the 120
costs of producing the documents, including, but not limited to, the search costs, employee salary 121
4
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
costs and cost of reproduction of the documents. Each department required to furnish the 122
documents shall collect its own costs. 123
124
D. Witness Fees: Witness fees shall be the same as authorized in Utah Code Ssection 78B-1-125
11921-5-4, Utah Code Annotated, as amended from time to time or its successor statutes. 126
127
2.59.090: ENFORCEMENT OF SUBPOENAS: 128
129
A. Any party who willfully fails to comply with the subpoena, or who, having appeared, 130
refuses to answer any question pertinent to the matter under inquiry, except in accord with 131
privileges granted by law, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished in accord with the 132
punishments set by the state for class B misdemeanors. 133
134
B. In addition to criminal penalties, the subpoenaing party may also have the right of access 135
to the court for judicial enforcement of administrative subpoenas. 136
137
SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.75. That Chapter 138
2.75 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows: 139
CHAPTER 2.75 140
ENFORCEMENT OF CIVIL VIOLATIONS 141
2.75.010: Definitions: 142
2.75.020: Hearing Officer: 143
2.75.030: Civil Violations: 144
2.75.040: Attorney Fees: 145
146
2.75.010: DEFINITIONS: 147
Whenever the following terms are used in this chapter, they shall have the meanings set forth 148
herein: 149
150
ASSESSMENTS: Means and includes, but is not limited to, late charges, administrative fees, 151
attorney fees, court costs, and traffic school fees. 152
153
CIVIL CITATION (Also Known As CIVIL NOTICE OF VIOLATION OR CIVIL NOTICE): A 154
notice that a civil violation of this code has occurred, issued by an officer or other person 155
authorized to issue such notice consistent with Utah Code Annotated section 10-3-703 or other 156
applicable laws or state statutes or their successors. 157
5
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
158
CIVIL PENALTY: The fine, forfeitures, assessments or combination thereof imposed by the Salt 159
Lake City justice court. 160
161
CIVIL VIOLATION: A noncriminal violation of Salt Lake City ordinances designated as civil 162
violations. 163
164
HEARING OFFICER: An individual designated as a hearing officer, violation coordinator or 165
referee, or such other person who has authority to make decisions regarding civil or criminal 166
citations that have been issued by an enforcement officer, before the matter is referred to a 167
justice court judge. ( 168
2.75.020: HEARING OFFICER: 169
A. Duties: Consistent with the policies and procedures promulgated by the justice court, the 170
hearing officer may adjust and set, as authorized, sums due as civil penalties, surcharges, and 171
assessments owed; reduce civil penalties owed; dismiss citations upon payment of fees; enter 172
into agreements for the timely or periodic payment of penalties, surcharges and assessments; 173
and perform such other duties as deemed necessary or desirable by the justice court to carry 174
out the purposes of this chapter in accordance with justice and equity. 175
B. Accountability: The hearing officer shall serve as staff for the justice court but shall be 176
supervised as an employee, under the direction of the city justice court director or his/her 177
designee. 178
2.75.030: CIVIL VIOLATIONS: 179
180
A. When an enforcement officer determines that a civil violation of this code has occurred, the 181
officer shall issue a civil citation, the matter shall be handled by the justice court, and the 182
penalty for such civil violation shall be as provided in section 1.12.050 of this code, or its 183
successor. 184
B. Any person having received a civil citation shall, within twenty (20) days, either pay the 185
civil penalty as contained in the default penalty schedule or file a written request for a 186
hearing before the justice court. 187
C. Any person receiving a civil citation who requests a hearing shall discuss the matter with a 188
hearing officer for informal resolution prior to the hearing before the justice court. 189
D. If the matter is resolved by the hearing officer, the hearing request shall be dismissed. 190
E. If the civil penalties payable to the city remain unsatisfied and no written request for a 191
hearing has been filed after twenty (20) days from the issuance of the civil citation, the city 192
6
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
may use such lawful means as are available to collect such penalties, including late charges, 193
administrative and court costs and attorney fees. Any additional penalties are stayed upon 194
filing the request for hearing, until judgment is rendered in the matter. 195
2.75.040: ATTORNEY FEES: 196
A. If an attorney for the city assists the collections division of the city's finance department in 197
an enforcement or collection action involving a citation for a civil violation of this code, then 198
an attorney fee in the amount set forth in the Salt Lake city consolidated fee schedule shall be 199
assessed against the individual or entity that received the citation. This attorney fee shall be 200
assessed in addition to any other fees that may lawfully be assessed in such circumstances. 201
B. The attorney fee set forth in subsection A of this section shall not be imposed where the 202
imposition of the attorney fee: 203
1. Conflicts with federal, state or local law; or 204
2. Conflicts with a binding contract between the city and the entity or individual required 205
to make payments to the city. 206
207
Article I 208
GENERAL PROVISIONS 209
210
2.75.010: PURPOSE AND INTENT: 211
2.75.020: SCOPE: 212
2.75.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED: 213
2.75.040: CRIMINAL PROSECUTION RIGHT: 214
2.75.050: DEFINITIONS: 215
216
2.75.010: PURPOSE AND INTENT: 217
218
For specified administrative citations, as more particularly defined and designated in the Salt 219
Lake City Code, which are issued by the city, it is the purpose and intent of the city to afford 220
the recipient of such citation due process of law. Due process shall require proper notice of the 221
nature of the violation and the opportunity to be heard. 222
223
224
2.75.020: SCOPE: 225
226
The provisions of this chapter may be applied to all violations of the Salt Lake City Code that are 227
enforced through the issuance of an administrative citation and occur within Salt Lake City limits 228
7
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
and such territory outside Salt Lake City limits over which the city has jurisdiction or control by 229
virtue of any law or constitutional provision. However, if a more specific enforcement procedure 230
for a particular class of violations is expressly set forth in the Salt Lake City Code, then that 231
specifically-enumerated enforcement procedure shall apply. 232
233
234
2.75.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED: 235
236
The provisions of this chapter are not intended to invalidate any other provision of the Salt Lake 237
City Code and shall be read in harmony therewith. 238
239
240
2.75.040: CRIMINAL PROSECUTION RIGHT: 241
242
The provisions of this chapter shall not be construed to limit the city’s right to prosecute a 243
violation of the Salt Lake City Code as a criminal offense. 244
245
246
2.75.050: DEFINITIONS: 247
248
In the construction of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be as defined as set 249
forth in this section: 250
251
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER: A person appointed by the mayor to conduct 252
administrative enforcement hearings. 253
254
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: A citation notifying a person of an administrative violation. 255
The term “administrative citation” shall be deemed to include any reference in this code to a 256
“civil notice”, a “notice of violation”, an itemized statement of abatement costs, a notice of 257
abatement, or other notice of any adverse municipal decision for which the right to an 258
administrative enforcement hearing is specifically provided by ordinance. 259
260
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: All costs incurred by the city in connection with an administrative 261
violation, including but not limited to costs incurred in preparing for and attending an 262
administrative enforcement hearing. 263
264
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: A hearing held by an administrative 265
appeals officer pursuant to the procedures established by this chapter. 266
267
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: An order issued by an administrative appeals 268
officer pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, including but not limited to an order to pay civil 269
penalties and administrative costs. 270
271
ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLATION: Any violation of the Salt Lake City Code that the city has 272
elected not to prosecute as a criminal citation. The term “administrative violation” shall be 273
8
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
deemed to include any reference in this code to a “civil violation” where such civil violation is 274
subject to the processes and procedures set forth in this chapter. 275
276
CITY: The city of Salt Lake City, Utah. 277
278
CITY COUNCIL: The legislative body of Salt Lake City, Utah. 279
280
CIVIL PENALTY: A penalty imposed on a responsible person in conjunction with the issuance 281
of an administrative citation for a violation of the Salt Lake City Code. 282
283
HEARING OFFICER: A person authorized to facilitate the informal resolution of administrative 284
violations through an initial determination conducted prior to an administrative enforcement 285
hearing. 286
287
INITIAL DETERMINATION: An informal hearing conducted by a hearing officer where the 288
hearing officer reviews the evidence provided by the responsible person to whom the 289
administrative citation corresponds and makes a determination as to whether such evidence 290
justifies upholding or dismissing the administrative citation. 291
292
ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS: A written notice that informs a responsible person of 293
abatement actions taken by the city and provides an itemized statement of costs for those actions. 294
295
MAYOR: The mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. 296
297
NOTICE OF ABATEMENT: A written notice that informs a responsible person of abatement 298
actions taken by the city and provides an itemized statement of costs for those actions. 299
300
PERSON: Any natural person, firm, joint venture, joint stock company, partnership, association, 301
club, company, corporation, business trust, organization, or the manager, lessee, agent, officer, or 302
employee of the same, or any other entity or individual recognized by law as having rights or 303
duties. 304
305
RESPONSIBLE PERSON: A responsible person includes: 306
307
A. A person who causes or materially contributes to the causation of an administrative 308
violation or is otherwise responsible for an administrative violation as set forth in the 309
Salt Lake City Code; or 310
B. A person whose agent, employee, or independent contractor causes or materially 311
contributes to the causation of an administrative violation; or 312
C. The owner or occupant of real property within the city’s jurisdiction at which a 313
violation of the Salt Lake City Code occurs or exists. 314
315
316
Article II 317
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY 318
319
9
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
2.75.060: ADOPTION OF POLICY AND PROCEDURES: 320
2.75.070: DESIGNATION OF HEARING OFFICERS: 321
2.75.080; POWERS OF HEARING OFFICERS: 322
2.75.090: APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICERS: 323
2.75.100: POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICERS: 324
2.75.110: FALSE INFORMATION OR REFUSAL PROHIBITED: 325
2.75.120: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, AIDING, AND ABETTING: 326
327
328
2.75.060: ADOPTION OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES: 329
330
The chief administrative officer, or his/her designee, shall establish policies and procedures 331
addressing the enforcement of civil violations if such policies and procedures are consistent with 332
the provisions of this chapter. 333
334
335
2.75.070: DESIGNATION OF HEARING OFFICERS/ELECTIVE USE: 336
337
A. The department responsible for issuing the administrative citation may elect to refer 338
appeals of the same to the hearing officer process set forth in Sections 2.75.130, 2.75.160 and 339
2.75.170. In the event such election is not made, such department shall provide a similar 340
informal process to evaluate any evidence provided by the recipient of an administrative citation 341
that a violation did not occur or that there is good cause to rescind or otherwise provide relief 342
from the administrative citation. The administrative enforcement hearings process set forth in 343
Sections 2.75.90, 2.75.100, and Article III below shall be available to appeal such departmental 344
initial determination. 345
346
B. The department of finance shall designate hearing officers through any process consistent 347
with the city’s human resources policies and procedures. A hearing officer may be a city 348
employee. 349
350
351
2.75.080: POWERS OF HEARING OFFICERS: 352
353
A. A hearing officer shall conduct informal initial determinations regarding violations of the 354
Salt Lake City Code as provided in this chapter. 355
356
B. The hearing officer shall have the authority to: 357
358
1. Determine whether a violation has occurred; and 359
2. Subject to Section 2.75.170.B, dismiss an administrative citation; or 360
3. Subject to Section 2.75.170.B, uphold the administrative citation and reduce the civil 361
penalty associated with the administrative citation; or 362
4. Uphold the administrative citation without reducing the civil penalty associated with 363
the administrative citation. 364
365
10
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
366
2.75.090: APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICERS: 367
368
A. The mayor, with the advice and consent of the city council, shall appoint one or more 369
administrative appeals officers to conduct administrative enforcement hearings. 370
371
B. An administrative appeals officer: 372
1. Shall not participate in any appeal in which the officer has a conflict of interest 373
prohibited by Chapter 2.44; and 374
2. Shall be either law trained or have significant experience with the requirements and 375
operations of administrative hearing processes. 376
377
C. An administrative appeals officer shall serve for renewable terms of three years and, 378
during any three-year term, shall be subject to removal by the mayor only for cause. 379
380
381
2.75.100: POWERS & JURISDICTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICERS: 382
383
A. Except where a more specific enforcement appeal process is provided for in the Salt 384
Lake City Code, and, where a responsible person or the city has properly requested an 385
administrative enforcement hearing, an administrative appeals officer shall hear appeals 386
challenging any administrative citation. 387
388
B. An administrative appeals officer shall have authority to hold an administrative 389
enforcement hearing for violations of the Salt Lake City Code and such other matters as 390
specifically designated by ordinance. 391
392
C. Standard of Review: The standard of review for an appeal shall be de novo. The 393
administrative appeals officer shall review the matter anew, based upon applicable 394
procedures and standards for approval, and shall give no deference to the decision 395
resulting in the administrative citation. The administrative appeals officer shall uphold 396
the administrative citation unless it is not supported by substantial evidence or it 397
violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect when the administrative citation was 398
issued. 399
400
D. Burden of Proof: The appellant has the burden of proving that the administrative 401
citation is incorrect, or in the event the city is the appellant, that the hearing officer 402
erred. 403
404
E. An administrative appeals officer may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or may 405
modify the administrative citation. 406
407
F. After issuing a decision on the appeal, an administrative appeals officer has continuing 408
jurisdiction over the subject matter of an administrative enforcement hearing for the 409
purposes of: issuing further administrative orders to obtain compliance with the 410
decision, authorizing the city to enter upon private property to abate a violation, 411
11
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
modifying an administrative order, staying an administrative order, assessing costs of 412
abatement, assessing a civil penalty, or, where extraordinary circumstances exist, 413
granting a new hearing. 414
415
G. An administrative appeals officer shall not make any order contrary to any law or that 416
would require or allow a person to violate state law or city ordinance. 417
418
H. An administrative appeals officer may issue administrative subpoenas pursuant to 419
Chapter 2.59 in accordance with the policies and procedures adopted pursuant to 420
Section 2.75.060. 421
422
423
2.75.110: FALSE INFORMATION OR REFUSAL PROHIBITED: 424
425
It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully make a false statement or refuse to give the 426
person’s name or address with intent to deceive or interfere with the performance of the official 427
duties of the person issuing the administrative citation, the hearing officer, or the administrative 428
appeals officer under the provisions of this chapter. 429
430
431
2.75.120: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, AIDING, AND ABETTING: 432
433
Whenever any act or omission is made unlawful in this chapter, it shall include causing, 434
permitting, aiding, or abetting such act or omission. 435
436
437
Article III 438
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES 439
440
2.75.130: ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION APPEAL PROCEDURE OVERVIEW: 441
2.75.140: ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: 442
2.75.150: CIVIL PENALTIES ASSESSED: 443
2.75.160: REQUEST FOR INITIAL DETERMINATION: 444
2.75.170: INITIAL DETERMINATION PROCEDURES: 445
2.75.180: NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: 446
2.75.190: ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING PROCEDURES: 447
2.75.200: ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: 448
2.75.210: APPEAL TO DISTRICT COURT: 449
2.75.220: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS: 450
451
452
2.75.130: ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION APPEAL PROCEDURE OVERVIEW: 453
454
Administrative citations and timely appeals thereof shall be processed using the following 455
procedural framework: 456
457
12
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
A. When there is a determination that a violation of the Salt Lake City Code has occurred, 458
any authorized city personnel may issue an administrative citation for such violation to 459
the responsible person; 460
461
B. Any person receiving an administrative citation shall, within ten (10) calendar days, or 462
such longer period if stated on the administrative citation, either (1) comply with the 463
terms of the administrative citation, including payment of any specified civil penalty then 464
due, or (2) file a written request for an initial determination on a form provided by the 465
department of finance. The written request for an initial determination shall include a 466
statement describing the grounds that support the person’s challenge to the administrative 467
citation and shall be accompanied by any evidence the person desires to submit to a 468
hearing officer. After reviewing such written request and the submitted evidence, a 469
hearing officer shall render a written determination regarding the challenged 470
administrative citation. The written determination shall promptly be sent to all parties to 471
the initial determination. 472
473
C. If the recipient of the administrative citation does not agree with the determination of the 474
hearing officer, then the recipient of the administrative citation shall file a written request 475
for an administrative enforcement hearing and pay the administrative enforcement 476
hearing fee as set forth in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule within ten (10) 477
days of the hearing officer’s written decision. After such a request for hearing is received, 478
an administrative enforcement hearing will be held and an administrative appeals officer 479
will issue an administrative enforcement order regarding the administrative citation. 480
481
D. Within thirty (30) days of the date the administrative enforcement order is issued, both 482
the city and the recipient of the administrative citation shall have the right to appeal the 483
administrative enforcement order by filing a petition for review with the Third District 484
Court of Utah. 485
486
487
2.75.140: ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: 488
489
A. An administrative citation may be issued to any responsible person. 490
491
B. The administrative citation shall include the following information: 492
1. Name of responsible person (if the name of the responsible person cannot 493
reasonably be ascertained, then a description of the real or personal property that 494
is the subject of the violation shall suffice); 495
2. Location of violation; 496
3. Date when the violation is observed; 497
4. A code citation and a description of each violation; 498
5. The amount of the civil penalty that corresponds to each violation; 499
6. Procedures for paying civil penalties; 500
7. Any instructions or other guidance specific to the facts of the violation at issue 501
and any corrective action available to the responsible person other than payment 502
of the civil penalty, if applicable; and 503
13
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
8. Procedures to request an initial determination and a description of the 504
consequences for failure to request or appear at such initial determination. 505
506
C. Notice of an administrative citation shall be issued to a responsible person in the 507
following manner: 508
509
1. Personally delivering the administrative citation to the responsible person; or 510
2. Sending the citation by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the responsible 511
person; or 512
3. Posting a copy of the administrative citation on the real or personal property 513
that gave rise to the administrative citation. 514
515
D. Service of an administrative citation is effective upon utilizing any method of issuance 516
set forth in Section 2.75.140.C. However, the deadline set forth in Section 2.75.160.A 517
shall be extended by 7 days if a citation is served pursuant to Section 2.75.140.C.2. 518
519
520
2.75.150: CIVIL PENALTIES ASSESSED: 521
522
A. Any person receiving an administrative citation shall comply with the terms of the 523
administrative citation, including payment of any specified civil penalty then due, unless 524
an initial determination is requested. 525
526
B. If the Salt Lake City Code states that the civil penalty for a particular administrative 527
violation will be reduced if payment is received within a specified time period, then the 528
city’s receipt of either payment or a request for an initial determination prior to the 529
expiration of that specified time period will permit the recipient of the administrative 530
citation to receive that penalty reduction. However, after all requested determinations and 531
hearings have been concluded, a person may forfeit such penalty reduction by failing to 532
timely pay any civil penalty ordered by the hearing officer or administrative appeals 533
officer, as applicable. 534
535
C. The civil penalty for each violation listed on an administrative citation shall be as set 536
forth in the Salt Lake City Code. 537
538
D. If the civil penalties payable to the city remain unsatisfied, and no written request for an 539
initial determination has been timely filed, the city may use such lawful means as are 540
available to collect such civil penalties. 541
542
543
2.75.160: REQUEST FOR INITIAL DETERMINATION: 544
545
A. Any person receiving an administrative citation shall, within ten (10) calendar days, or 546
such longer period if stated on the administrative citation, either (1) comply with the 547
terms of the administrative citation, including payment of any specified civil penalty then 548
14
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
due, or (2) file a written request for an initial determination on a form provided by the 549
department of finance. 550
551
B. Any recipient of an administrative citation may request a copy of the documents 552
maintained by the city supporting the administrative citation. 553
554
C. A request for an initial determination shall be submitted to the department of finance, 555
either electronically or by submitting a hard copy document, on a form provided by the 556
department of finance. The request shall include: 557
558
1. The administrative citation number or case file number, as applicable; 559
2. The name, physical address, telephone number, and email address of the person 560
requesting the initial determination; 561
3. A statement describing the grounds that support the person’s challenge to the 562
administrative citation, which shall set forth every theory of relief that will be presented to the 563
hearing officer; and 564
4. Any evidence the person desires to submit for the initial determination. 565
566
D. Failure by a person to timely request an initial determination shall constitute a waiver of 567
the right to any initial determination and administrative enforcement hearing and a waiver 568
of the right to challenge the administrative citation. If an initial determination is not 569
timely requested and administrative citation is not complied with then the city may elect 570
to enforce the administrative citation by any lawful means. 571
572
573
2.75.170: INITIAL DETERMINATION PROCEDURES: 574
575
A. A request for an initial determination filed in compliance with the requirements of 576
Section 2.75.160 shall be processed as follows: 577
578
1. The city shall bear the burden of proof to establish the existence of a violation of the 579
Salt Lake City Code. Such proof shall be established by a preponderance of the evidence. 580
2. The hearing officer shall review the written request for an initial determination, 581
including the arguments and evidence set forth therein; 582
3. The hearing officer shall also review any evidence related to the administrative citation 583
provided by the issuer thereof; and 584
4. The hearing officer shall issue a written determination regarding the administrative 585
citation within five (5) business days from the date the written request for an initial 586
determination is received. The hearing officer’s written decision may: 587
588
a. Dismiss the administrative citation; 589
b. Uphold the administrative citation and reduce the associated civil 590
penalty; or 591
c. Uphold the administrative citation without reducing the associated 592
civil penalty. 593
594
15
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
B. A hearing officer shall only dismiss an administrative citation or reduce a civil penalty 595
associated therewith as follows: 596
597
1. If the person receiving the administrative citation is not the responsible party; 598
2. If the administrative citation does not comply with Section 2.75.140. 599
3. The city has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation 600
identified in the administrative citation occurred. 601
4. Imminent injury to persons or property would result from compliance with the 602
administrative citation. 603
5. All corrective actions outlined in the notice of violation were completed on or before 604
the compliance date. 605
6. Such mitigating circumstances expressly identified in the Salt Lake City Code 606
corresponding to the specific violation at issue. 607
7. When conducting an initial determination involving an alleged violation for 608
unauthorized use of streets, a hearing officer may only dismiss an administrative citation 609
or reduce the civil penalties corresponding to such a citation pursuant to the criteria set 610
forth in Section 12.56.570, or its successor. 611
8. Civil penalties shall not be reduced where a violation is sustained by the hearing 612
officer but the responsible person has not yet complied with the corrective action, if any, 613
identified in the administrative citation. 614
9. Or as otherwise limited by law. 615
616
C. A person adversely affected by a hearing officer’s written determination, or written 617
determination of the applicable department if the department has not elected to use an 618
hearing officer pursuant to Section 2.75.070, may appeal that written determination by 619
filing a completed request for an administrative enforcement hearing within ten (10) days 620
of the date on which the written determination was issued. A request for an 621
administrative enforcement hearing shall be made in writing on a form provided by the 622
department of finance and may be filed, either electronically or by submitting a hard copy 623
document, with the department of finance. The request shall include: 624
625
1. The administrative citation number or case file number, as applicable; 626
2. The name, address, telephone number, and email address of the person requesting the 627
hearing; 628
3. A statement describing the grounds that support the person’s challenge to the 629
administrative citation, which shall set forth every theory of relief that will be presented 630
to the administrative appeals officer; 631
4. Any evidence the person desires to submit for the administrative appeals officer’s 632
consideration; and 633
5. An administrative enforcement hearing fee as set forth in the Salt Lake City 634
consolidated fee schedule. However, in no case shall the administrative enforcement 635
hearing fee assessed be greater than the base civil penalty that corresponds to the 636
cumulative administrative violation(s) at issue. In the event that the city is the appellant, 637
no hearing fee shall be payable from either party. The hearing fee shall be due at the time 638
of filing the hearing request. An administrative enforcement hearing request shall not be 639
considered complete until the hearing fee is paid. 640
16
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
641
a. If the citation recipient prevails at the administrative enforcement 642
hearing, the administrative enforcement hearing fee shall be refunded to 643
the citation recipient. Otherwise, no refund of the hearing fee shall be 644
granted. A modification of the administrative citation or mere reduction in 645
the civil penalty shall not render the citation recipient the prevailing party. 646
647
D. Failure by a person to timely request an administrative enforcement hearing shall 648
constitute a waiver of the right to make any further challenge regarding the administrative 649
citation or result of the initial determination. If an administrative enforcement hearing is 650
not timely requested and the hearing officer’s written determination, or the written 651
determination of the applicable department if the department has not elected to use a 652
hearing officer pursuant to Section 2.75.070, has not been complied with, then the city 653
may elect to enforce the administrative citation, or written determination to the extent it 654
modified the administrative citation, by any lawful means. 655
656
657
2.75.180: NOTICE & ATTENDANCE AT ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT 658
HEARING: 659
660
A. Upon receipt of a request for an administrative enforcement hearing the administrative 661
appeals officer shall schedule and hold a hearing in accordance with the standards and 662
procedures adopted in Section 2.75.060. All administrative enforcement hearings shall be open 663
to the public and shall be recorded. 664
665
B. Notification of the date, time and place of the hearing shall be given a minimum of 666
twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the hearing. 667
668
C. Time Limitation: All administrative enforcement hearings shall be held within one 669
hundred eighty (180) days of the written determination by the hearing officer, or department if 670
applicable. Appeals not heard within this time frame will be considered moot and the associated 671
administrative citation withdrawn by the city. 672
673
D. If a person, without good cause, fails to appear at an administrative enforcement hearing 674
then the administrative appeals officer may (1) render a decision based solely upon the 675
arguments and evidence submitted prior to the hearing by the non-appearing party and any 676
arguments and evidence submitted by the appearing party at the hearing, or (2) grant a decision 677
by default to the appearing party. The administrative appeals officer shall have discretion to 678
determine whether good cause for an absence exists. 679
680
681
2.75.190: ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING PROCEDURES: 682
683
A. Administrative enforcement hearings are intended to be informal in nature. Formal rules 684
of evidence and discovery shall not apply. No later than five (5) business days prior to the 685
hearing the party that did not request the hearing shall provide the other an electronic 686
17
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
copy of any documents, photographs or other tangible evidence it intends to present at the 687
hearing and both parties shall provide a list of the witnesses that will testify at the 688
hearing. If an administrative citation arises from a complaint by a person who is not a city 689
employee, the complainant’s information shall not be disclosed or released other than the 690
inclusion of a complainant’s name in a witness list if the complainant will be a witness at 691
the hearing. 692
693
B. Each party shall have the right to be represented by an attorney at their sole cost and 694
expense. If an attorney will be representing a responsible person at a hearing, notice of 695
the attorney’s name, telephone number, and email address shall be provided at least two 696
(2) business days prior to the hearing. If such notice is not given, the hearing may be 697
continued at the city’s request, and all costs of the continuance may be assessed to the 698
responsible person. 699
700
C. No new hearing shall be granted unless the administrative appeals officer determines that 701
extraordinary circumstances exist that justify a new hearing. 702
703
D. Hearings shall be conducted in a manner as to afford the parties due process and in 704
accordance with the policies and procedures adopted pursuant to Section 2.75.060. 705
706
E. The burden to prove any defense shall be upon the party raising such defense. 707
708
F. After considering all applicable evidence, testimony, and defenses presented, the 709
administrative appeals officer shall issue a written administrative enforcement order in 710
accordance with the requirements and criteria set forth in Section 2.75.200. 711
712
713
2.75.200: ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: 714
715
A. After an administrative enforcement hearing, or the close of evidence, whichever occurs 716
later, the administrative appeals officer shall, within ten (10) business days, issue a written 717
administrative enforcement order that includes findings of fact and conclusions of law that 718
support the administrative appeals officer’s decision and, if applicable, the action required of the 719
responsible party to satisfy the order. If a decision is rendered at the administrative enforcement 720
hearing the administrative appeals officer may assign the party who prevailed, if represented by 721
counsel, the task of preparing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. 722
723
B. Depending on the nature of the administrative violation at issue, an administrative 724
appeals officer may issue an administrative enforcement order that orders any of the 725
following: 726
727
1. Dismisses an administrative citation, or dismisses one or more of the administrative 728
violations associated with the administrative citation. 729
2. Requires a responsible person to cease and desist from committing or otherwise abate 730
the conditions causing the administrative violations identified in the administrative 731
citation; 732
18
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
3. Requires a responsible person to take any necessary corrective action to avoid 733
committing or to cease committing the administrative violations and establish 734
deadlines for the same; 735
3. Imposes civil penalties as set forth in this code; 736
4. Permits the city to enter property identified in the administrative citation and abate all 737
violations; 738
739
a. Whenever an order of abatement is entered the administrative appeals 740
officer shall also order the responsible person to pay to the city the actual 741
costs of the abatement and any administrative costs the city incurs in 742
performing the abatement. 743
744
5. Reduces the civil penalties associated with one or more administrative violations, 745
except that no such reduction shall be ordered when the violation is sustained but the 746
responsible person has not yet complied with the corrective action affirmed or 747
ordered by the administrative appeals officer; 748
6. Establishes specific deadlines for the payment of civil penalties and administrative 749
costs; 750
7. Denies, revokes, or suspends a city license, permit or other city approval; 751
8. Provides for subsequent review hearings as may be necessary to ensure compliance 752
with an administrative enforcement order; 753
9. Imposes any other applicable penalties or fees in accordance with the provisions set 754
forth in this code. 755
756
C. In considering a request to modify civil penalties imposed in connection with an 757
administrative citation an administrative appeals officer may consider any or all of the 758
following factors: 759
1. Duration, frequency, and reoccurrence of a violation; 760
2. Seriousness of a violation; 761
3. History of a violation; 762
4. Good faith effort by a responsible person to comply with the administrative citation or, 763
if applicable, the administrative enforcement order; 764
5. Prior record of city code violations; and 765
6. Any other factor appropriate to a just result. 766
767
D. Promptly after an administrative enforcement order is issued it shall be sent either by 768
mail to the address or to the email address identified on the administrative enforcement 769
hearing request. An administrative enforcement order shall be deemed final on the date it 770
is sent to such address. The deadline for appeal pursuant to Section 2.75.210.B shall be 771
extended by 7 days for order sent by mail. 772
773
E. If a responsible person fails to comply with the terms set forth in an administrative 774
enforcement order, the city may use all appropriate legal means to obtain compliance 775
thereof and recover civil penalties and administrative costs, including attorney’s fees. 776
777
778
19
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
2.75.210: APPEAL TO DISTRICT COURT: 779
780
A. The city or any responsible person adversely affected by a final administrative 781
enforcement order may file a petition for review with the Third District Court of Utah. The scope 782
of review shall be limited to the record before the administrative appeals officer. The court shall 783
presume the final administrative enforcement order is correct and shall not reweigh the evidence. 784
The administrative enforcement order may be overturned if it is illegal or arbitrary and 785
capricious. The administrative enforcement order shall be upheld if it is supported by substantial 786
evidence. 787
788
B. A petition for review shall be barred unless it is filed within thirty (30) days after the 789
administrative enforcement order is final. 790
791
C. The recording of the administrative enforcement hearing, any available minutes, evidence 792
submitted by the parties, orders, and if available, a true and correct transcript of the proceeding, 793
shall be provided by the city to the district court after the filing of a petition for review. 794
795
D. The filing of a petition for review in district court does not stay the final decision of the 796
administrative appeals officer. 797
798
799
2.75.220: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS: 800
801
At any time the recipient of an administrative citation and the city may enter into a stipulated 802
settlement agreement, which shall be signed by both parties. An executed settlement agreement 803
shall be binding upon the parties thereto. Execution of such agreement shall constitute a waiver, 804
as to the merits of the administrative citation, of any right to an initial determination, an 805
administrative enforcement hearing, and an appeal to district court, to the extent not yet 806
conducted. 807
808
SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 2.84.100. That Section 809
2.84.100 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 810
811
2.84.100: JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY: 812
813
The justice court shall have jurisdiction over all matters as provided by law and state statute, 814
including, but not limited to, jurisdiction and authority provided under Utah Code Annotated 815
Title 78A Chapter 7sections 78-5-104, 78-5-105, and 78-5-106, or theirits successors. In 816
accordance with said jurisdiction, the justice court may hear civil violations of Salt Lake City 817
ordinances, including, but not limited to, those civil violations which have been designated as 818
civil penalty matters, having been converted by the city from criminal violations, unless city 819
ordinances provide for a different procedure for handling such violations. Civil penalty matters 820
20
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
shall be managed in accordance with simplified rules of procedure and evidence applicable to 821
small claims courts. 822
823
SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.100. That Section 824
5.02.100 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 825
5.02.100: INVESTIGATION; MAYOR’S POWERS AND DUTIES: 826
A. Investigation: The mayor or his/her designee may, pPrior to the issuance of any business 827
license required by this title, the city may investigate any applicant for such license to ensure 828
such applicant, proposed business, and proposed place of business comply with all applicable 829
laws, rules, and regulations. Such investigation may include entry into the proposed business 830
premises.if the mayor has reasonable cause to believe that the applicant: 831
832
1. Has filed an application which is incomplete, erroneous, or false in any respect; 833
2. Fails in any respect to qualify to do business in the city under any federal, state or city 834
law, rule or regulation; or 835
3. Has committed such act or acts as may be grounds for revocation or denial of a license 836
application under any federal, Utah state, or Salt Lake City law, rule or regulation; or 837
4. Investigation is provided by city ordinance. 838
839
B. Documents Productionand Witnesses: Unless the business license application is 840
withdrawn by the applicant, and no business operations are taking place without the required 841
licensetThe citymayor or his/her designee may compel the production of documents and 842
witnesses in order to conduct such investigation as provided by this section. 843
844
C. Application Denial: Upon a finding by the mayor or the designated hearing examiner that 845
the application is in fact incomplete, erroneous or false in any respect, or that the applicant is not 846
qualified to do business in the city under any federal, Utah state or city law, rule or regulation, or 847
that the applicant has committed an act or acts which would justify denial of the application, 848
such application may be denied by the mayor or the designated hearing examiner after hearing, 849
as provided in this chapter.Continuing Powers: In the event that a license is issued pursuant to 850
this title, the license holder and place of business shall be subject to ongoing inspections and 851
investigation to determine continued compliance with the terms and conditions of the license and 852
all applicable laws, rules and regulations. 853
854
SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.115. That Section 855
5.02.115 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 856
5.02.115: TIME LIMITATIONS: 857
A. License Issuance Limitations: Unless otherwise specified by a specific ordinance, the city 858
has thirty (30) days in which to complete its review and approve or deny a license. If a review 859
21
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
cannot be completed within thirty (30) days, a conditional license mayshall be issued to the 860
applicant subject to completion of the review, verifying the applicant meets all license 861
requirements. 862
863
B. Appeal Time Limit: The licensee may appeal the denial of a license by the license 864
supervisor by filing with the license supervisor a written notice of appeal. The notice must be 865
filed within ten (10) days of receipt of notice of denial of the license. 866
867
868
SECTION 6. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.230. That Section 869
5.02.230 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed in its entirety as follows: 870
5.02.230: RESERVEDLICENSE; HEARING PROCEDURES: 871
Hearings to consider the revocation, suspension, approval, or denial of licenses issued by Salt 872
Lake City Corporation shall be held by or at the direction of the mayor. Notwithstanding the 873
provisions of any other ordinance pertaining to hearings before the mayor for the suspension or 874
revocation of licenses, such hearings may be held either before the mayor, or before any 875
hearing examiner who has been appointed by the mayor, upon the advice and consent of the 876
city council, to conduct such hearings. 877
878
SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.250. That Section 879
5.02.250 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 880
881
5.02.250: LICENSE; DENIAL, SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION; CONDITIONS: 882
883
A. Conditions Oof Denial, Suspension Oor Revocation: The licensee shall be responsible for 884
the operation of the licensed premises in conformance with the ordinances of the city. Any 885
business license issued by the city may be suspended or revoked, and any application for any 886
business license or for the renewal of any business license may be denied, by the mayor or the 887
designated hearing examiner, for a period of time not to exceed three (3) years after a hearing 888
held before the mayor or at the mayor's direction, upon a finding by the mayor or the designated 889
hearing examiner of a violation of or conviction ofdue to any of the following arising out of or 890
otherwise related to the application for, or the operation of, the business at issuewith respect to 891
the licensee or licensee's operator or agent: 892
893
1. The applicant or place of business does not meet the qualifications for a license; 894
2. Nonpayment of required fees; 895
3. An incomplete application; 896
4. Noncompliance with any requirement or condition associated with a city approval 897
associated with the business (i.e. conditional use permit, development agreement, 898
variance); 899
22
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
15. A violation of or a conviction for violating any ordinance regulating or governing 900
the business for which said license was granted; or 901
26. A violation of or conviction for violating any other city ordinance or law of the 902
state which affects the health, welfare or safety of its residents, including, but not limited 903
to, a public nuisance, and which violation or conviction relates to the business so licensed 904
or to be licensed; or 905
37. A violation of or conviction for violating an ordinance which violation or 906
conviction resulted from the operation of the business so licensed; or 907
48. Any material misrepresentation or any fraud perpetrated on the licensing authority 908
through application for, or operation of, said business.; or 909
9. The applicant or licensee has refused authorized representatives of the city access 910
to the place of business for the purpose of an inspection or has interfered with such 911
representatives while in the performance of their duty in making such inspection. 912
913
914
B. Other Grounds Not Precluded: These violations shall not limit, but shall be in addition to, 915
other grounds for the denial, suspension or revocation of any license as provided for by 916
ordinance. 917
918
C. Theaters; Prior Violations: The foregoing provisions of this section notwithstanding, 919
nothing herein shall authorize a revocation or suspension of any license of any theater, motion 920
picture house or concert hall, based on a prior conviction or violation of exhibition or distribution 921
of obscene material. 922
923
924
SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.260. That Section 925
5.02.260 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 926
5.02.260: LICENSE; DENIAL, SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION; PROCEDURE: 927
928
A. Hearing Required; Notice: Any suspension, revocation or denial of the renewal of a 929
license may be appealed pursuant to Chapter 2.75. Suspension or revocation shall not take effect 930
until the time period for appealing the decision has expired or, if applicable, a decision is issued 931
as a result of a timely appeal.by the City shall not be imposed until a hearing is first held before 932
the Mayor or a hearing examiner appointed by the Mayor. Reasonable notice of the time and 933
place of the hearing, together with notice of the nature of the charges or complaint against the 934
licensee, premises or applicant sufficient to reasonably inform the licensee or applicant and 935
enable him/her to answer such charges and complaint, shall be served upon the licensee or 936
applicant personally or by mailing a copy to the licensee or applicant at his or her last known 937
address. 938
B. Hearing Procedures: All witnesses called at such hearings shall be sworn by a person 939
duly authorized to administer oaths, and a record of such hearing shall be made by a recording or 940
a court reporter. A licensee or applicant shall have the right to appear at the hearing in person or 941
by counsel, or both, present evidence, present argument on the licensee's or applicant's behalf, 942
cross examine witnesses, and in all proper ways defend the licensee's or applicant's position 943
23
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
944
SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.270. That Section 945
5.02.270 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 946
5.02.270: NEW LICENSE APPLICATION; WAITING PERIOD REQUIRED WHEN: 947
It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or any agent, manager or operator of any person, 948
corporation or firm who has had a license suspended, revoked or denied by the Mayor or the 949
Mayor's designated hearing examiner to reapply for or obtain a license, or operate a business, 950
which has been so suspended, revoked or denied during the time that said license has been 951
revoked, suspended or denied or for a period of one (1) year from the effective date of said 952
suspension, revocation, or denial if no period of debarment is specified by the order of 953
suspension, revocation, or denial. 954
955
SECTION 10. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Sections 5.02.280, 5.02.290, 956
and 5.02.310. That Sections 5.02.280, 5.02.290, and 5.02.310 of the Salt Lake City Code are 957
hereby repealed in their entirety. 958
5.02.280: HEARING EXAMINERS; APPOINTMENT AND POWERS: 959
960
The Mayor may appoint one (1) or more hearing examiners upon the advice and consent of the 961
City Council, and the Mayor or any hearing examiner shall have power and authority to call, 962
preside at and conduct hearings to consider the suspension, revocation, denial or approval of 963
licenses issued by Salt Lake City Corporation, including the power to examine witnesses and 964
receive evidence, compel the attendance of witnesses, and compel the production of documents. 965
966
5.02.290: HEARINGS HELD BEFORE A HEARING EXAMINER: 967
968
At the conclusion of any hearing held as provided in section 5.02.260 of this chapter, or its 969
successor section, the hearing examiner shall issue or adopt written findings of fact and 970
conclusions of law and an order which is based upon and supported by the evidence presented at 971
the hearing. Such findings, conclusions and order shall have full force and effect upon issuance, 972
and shall be binding upon all parties as of the date and time of such issuance. The City and the 973
licensee or applicant may appeal such findings, conclusions and order to a court of competent 974
jurisdiction within thirty (30) days of the date on which the hearing examiner issues such 975
findings, conclusions and order. 976
977
5.02.310: SUBPOENAS: 978
979
At the request of any party, subpoenas for attendance at any hearing or for production of books, 980
papers, documents or tangible things shall be issued as provided in title 2, chapter 2.59 of this 981
Code or its successor chapter. 982
24
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
983
SECTION 11. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.04.040. That 984
Section 5.04.040 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 985
5.04.040: BUSINESS LICENSING FEES – EXEMPTIONSLICENSE; NOT REQUIRED 986
WHEN: 987
A. Fee Exemptions: No base license fee shall be imposed under this chapter upon any 988
person: 989
1. Engaged in business for solely religious, charitable, eleemosynary, or other types of 990
strictly nonprofit purpose who is tax exempt in such activities under the laws of the 991
United States and the state of Utah; 992
2. Engaged in a business specifically exempted from municipal taxation and fees under the 993
laws of the United States and the state of Utah; 994
3. Engaged in a business operated under the supervision of the Utah State Fair Corporation 995
and located exclusively at the Utah State Fair Park during the period of the annual Utah 996
State Fair; or 997
4. Not maintaining a place of business within the city who has paid a like or similar license 998
tax or fee to some other taxing unit within the state, and which taxing unit exempts from 999
its license tax or fee, by reciprocal agreement, businesses domiciled in the city and doing 1000
business in such taxing unit. 1001
B. Disproportionate Fees: The exemptions set forth in subsections A1, A2, and A4 of 1002
this section shall not apply to any disproportionate fees which may be applicable under 1003
section 5.04.070 of this chapter to a person doing business in the city, nor to any other fees or 1004
charges which may be required under this code. 1005
C. Reciprocal Agreement: The mayor may, with approval of the city council, enter 1006
into reciprocal agreements with the proper officials of other taxing units, as may be deemed 1007
equitable and proper in effecting the exemption provided for in subsection A of this section. 1008
Nothing in this section shall preclude the city from reviewing and investigating a business 1009
license application under such a reciprocal agreement, and requiring payment of disproportionate 1010
fees or other fees or taxes imposed by any other provisions of the ordinances of the city, in the 1011
discretion of the city council. 1012
1013
SECTION 12. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.04.116. That 1014
Section 5.04.116 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1015
5.04.116: LICENSE; FEE COLLECTION; CIVIL ACTIONS AUTHORIZED: 1016
25
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
1017
A. Civil Actions: In all cases where a city ordinance requires that a license be 1018
obtained to carry on or to engage in any business, occupation or calling within the city, and the 1019
fee for such license is fixed by such ordinance, and the fee is not paid at the time or in the 1020
manner provided in said ordinance, a civil action may be brought in the name of Salt Lake City 1021
against the person failing to pay such license fee, in any court of this state having jurisdiction of 1022
such action, to recover the fee. In any case where several or diverse amounts of license fees 1023
remain due and unpaid by any such person, such several amounts of unpaid license fees may be 1024
joined as separate causes of action in the same complaint in such civil actions. 1025
B. Administrative Citation: Any unpaid license fees or penalties imposed pursuant to 1026
this title shall be issued in the form of an administrative citation and subject to Chapter 2.75. 1027
C. Other Enforcement: Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or in any 1028
manner interfere with the enforcement of any penalty provision contained in any ordinance of the 1029
city. 1030
1031
SECTION 13. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.08.230. That 1032
Section 5.08.230 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1033
5.08.230: APPEAL PROCEDURES: 1034
1035
A. The mayor shall appoint such hearing officers as he or she deems appropriate to consider 1036
matters relating to violations of this chapter. Civil penalties imposed pursuant to this chapter 1037
shall be subject to the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.75. 1038
1039
B. Any alarm user shall have ten (10) business days from the date of the city's written notice 1040
of a penalty assessment under this chapter to request in writing an appeal hearing before such 1041
hearing officer. The filing of an appeal with the alarm administrator shall stay the assessment of 1042
additional penalties for that violation until the hearing officer makes a final decision. The burden 1043
to prove any matter shall be upon the person raising such matter. It shall not be a defense to any 1044
penalty assessment that: 1) the false alarms were the result of faulty or malfunctioning 1045
equipment; 2) the false alarms were caused by electrical surges; or 3) the false alarms were 1046
caused by the fault of another person during noncriminal incidents. The hearing officer shall 1047
render a decision within ten (10) days after the appeal hearing is concluded. Following issuance 1048
of such decision, additional penalty assessments shall accrue until paid, as provided in this 1049
chapter. 1050
1051
C. If the hearing officer finds that no violation of this chapter occurred, or that a violation 1052
occurred but one or more of the defenses set forth in this section is applicable, Tthe hearing 1053
officer or administrative appealshearing officer, as applicable, may dismiss the penalty and 1054
release the alarm user from liability thereunder, or may reduce the penalty associated therewith 1055
as he or she shall determine if any of the following affirmative defenses are shown. Such 1056
defenses are: 1057
26
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
1058
1. The false alarm for which the penalty has been assessed did not originate at the 1059
premises of the alarm user who has been assessed the fee; 1060
2. The alarm for which the penalty has been assessed was, in fact, not false, but was 1061
rather the result of an actual or attempted burglary, robbery or other emergency; or 1062
3. The police dispatch office was notified by the permit holder or the alarm company 1063
that the alarm was false prior to the arrival of a peace officer to the subject premises in response 1064
to the false alarm.; or 1065
4. Such other mitigating circumstances as may be approved by the city law 1066
department. 1067
1068
D. If the hearing officer finds that a false alarm did occur and no applicable defense exists, 1069
the alarm administrator may, in the interest of justice and on behalf of the city, enter into an 1070
agreement for the timely or periodic payment of the applicable fees and penalties. 1071
1072
SECTION 14. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.09.080. That Section 1073
5.09.080 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1074
5.09.080: APPEALS: 1075
A. Except as set forth below, civil penalties and assessed fees imposed pursuant to 1076
this chapter shall be subject to the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.75. An owner may appeal the 1077
assessment of fees to the enforcement official. An appeal fee (see the Salt Lake City consolidated 1078
fee schedule) must accompany the appeal. Appeal fees will be returned to the owner if the appeal 1079
is upheld. The filing of an appeal with the enforcement official stays the assessment of the fee 1080
until the enforcement official makes a final decision. The owner shall file a written appeal to the 1081
enforcement official by setting forth the reasons for the appeal within fifteen (15) days after 1082
notice is mailed. 1083
B. An owner to whom a notice to disconnect or deactivate a fire alarm system was 1084
mailed, pursuant to subsection 5.09.070A of this chapter, shall be entitled to appeal the order to 1085
the enforcement official. An appeal fee (see the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule) must 1086
accompany the appeal. Appeal fees will be returned to the owner if the appeal is upheld. An 1087
appeal must be made in writing stating the reason why the order to disconnect or deactivate 1088
should be withdrawn. The appeal shall be made within fifteen (15) days after notice to 1089
disconnect is mailed to the owner. The enforcement official or his or her designee shall review 1090
the facts and circumstances and shall determine whether the owner has shown good cause why 1091
the order should be withdrawn. If the enforcement official affirms the order to disconnect or 1092
deactivate a fire alarm system, the owner shall have fifteen (15) days after the written decision is 1093
served upon the owner to comply with the order. The appeal of an order to disconnect or 1094
deactivate shall suspend the effective date of the order until the appeal has been acted upon by 1095
the enforcement official. 1096
1097
27
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SECTION 15. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 5.14.060.D. That 1098
Subsection 5.14.060.D of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1099
1100
D. Whenever it is necessary to make an inspection to enforce any provisions of this chapter, 1101
or whenever the Ccity has reasonable cause to believe a Code violation exists in any building or 1102
upon any premises which makes such building or premises unsafe, dangerous or hazardous, the 1103
Ccity's duly authorized representative may, after making reasonable efforts toupon obtaining 1104
permission of the owner or other person having charge or control of the premises or dwelling 1105
unit, or upon obtaining a warrant, enter a residential property or premises to inspect it or to 1106
perform any other duties imposed by this chapter. 1107
1108
SECTION 16. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.14.120. That Section 1109
5.14.120 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1110
5.14.120: ENFORCEMENT: 1111
A. Enforcement of all business licensing standards, except a property’s compliance 1112
with the self-certification standards required by Section 5.14.060, shall be pursuant to Chapters 1113
5.02, 5.04, and 5.88. 1114
B. Self-Certification Standard Enforcement: In addition to any other remedies 1115
authorized by law or in this title, if the notified party fails to repair or secure the property in 1116
question, the Ccity may pursue any one (1) or more of the following additional remedies: 1117
1. Notice Of Deficiency: The building services divisionSupervisor of Housing 1118
Enforcement may record with the Salt Lake County Recorder's Office a notice of 1119
any conditions that violate the self-certification standards established by the 1120
Ccity. The notice shall be mailed to all notified parties. 1121
2. Criminal Action: Violations of the provisions of self- certification standards 1122
established by the Ccity may be punishable as a Class B misdemeanor upon 1123
conviction. 1124
3. Civil Action: Violations of self-certification standards established by the Ccity 1125
may also be enforced by injunction, mandamus, abatement, civil penalties or any 1126
other appropriate action in law or equity. 1127
CB. Civil penalties may be imposed according to the following procedures: 1128
1. Notice Of Violation: 1129
a. If the housing inspector finds that any provision of this chapter is being 1130
violated, the housing inspector shall provide a written notice to the property 1131
owner and to any other person determined to be responsible for such violation. 1132
28
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
The written notice shall indicate the nature of the violation and order the 1133
action necessary to correct it. Additional written notices may be provided at 1134
the housing inspector's discretion. 1135
b. The written notice shall state what action the housing inspector intends to take 1136
if the violation is not corrected. The written notice shall include information 1137
regarding the established warning period for the indicated violations and shall 1138
serve to start any warning periods provided in this chapter. 1139
c. Such written notice issued by the housing inspector shall be deemed sufficient 1140
and complete when served upon the person cited: 1141
(1) Personally by the inspector or his or her representative; or by mailing, 1142
postage prepaid, by certified mail or commercial courier addressed to 1143
the person cited at the last known address appearing on the records of 1144
the County Recorder; and 1145
(2) By posting notice on the property where said violation(s) occurs. 1146
d. In cases when delay in enforcement would seriously threaten the effective 1147
enforcement of this chapter, or pose a danger to the public health, safety or 1148
welfare, the housing inspector may seek enforcement without prior written 1149
notice by invoking any of the fines or remedies authorized in this chapter. 1150
e. If the violation remains uncured within five (5) days after the expiration of the 1151
warning period, a second notice of violation shall be delivered by mail, 1152
postage prepaid, addressed to the person cited at the last known address 1153
appearing on the records of the County Recorder. The second notice of 1154
violation shall identify the date on which the civil penalties shall begin to 1155
accrue. 1156
2. Amount of Penalty: Civil penalties shall accrue as follows: 1157
a. Violations of the self-certification standards established by the Ccity: $50.00 1158
per violation per day. If more than 10 violations exist, the daily penalties shall 1159
double. 1160
3. Daily Violations: Each day a violation continues after the citation deadline shall 1161
give rise to a separate civil penalty. 1162
4. Compliance: Accumulation of penalties for violations, but not the obligation for 1163
payment of penalties already accrued, shall stop upon correction of the violation. 1164
5. Recurring Violations: In the case where a violation, which had been corrected, 1165
reoccurs within six (6) months of the initial correction, the Ccity will begin 1166
enforcement of said recurring violation and penalties will begin accruing after a 1167
ten (10) day warning period. 1168
6. Appeals: 1169
29
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
a. Appeals Contesting the Existence of a Violation: 1170
(1) Appeals contesting the existence of the violation must done in 1171
accordance with Section 18.12.030. 1172
b. Appeals Contesting the Amount of the Penalties Imposed: any person 1173
receiving a notice of violation may appeal the civil fines imposed, but not the 1174
basis therefor (which must be done pursuant to Subsection 5.14.120.BC.6.a), 1175
in accordance with Section 18.12.050. 1176
1177
SECTION 17. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.14.130. That Section 1178
5.14.130 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1179
5.14.130: REFUSAL TO PERMIT INSPECTIONS: 1180
If a rental dwelling business license holder, or an agent of such business license holder, refuses 1181
to permit the Ccity to conduct an inspection authorized under this chapter, then the Ccity has 1182
adequate grounds to: 1183
A. Revoke the rental dwelling business license that corresponds to the rental dwelling at 1184
issue; 1185
B. Disqualify the rental dwelling at issue from participation in the Ccity's Landlord/Tenant 1186
Initiative pursuant to chapter 5.15 of this title; 1187
C. After making reasonable efforts to obtaining a warrantpermission of the owner or other 1188
person having charge or control of the premises or dwelling unit, enter a rental dwelling at issue 1189
to inspect it or to otherwise perform duties imposed by this chapter; and/or 1190
D. Pursue any and all other remedies available to the Ccity. 1191
1192
SECTION 18. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.15.070. That Section 1193
5.15.070 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1194
5.15.070: DISQUALIFICATION: 1195
A. License Office Duties: If the License Office disqualifies an applicant from participating 1196
in the Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program or concludes that an owner hasreceives evidence that a 1197
rental dwelling owner or the owner's agents have, with respect to any rental dwelling, violated 1198
the provisions of this chapter or the owner's rental dwelling management agreement with the 1199
Ccity, the License Supervisor shall: 1200
30
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
1. Notify the rental dwelling owner of the violation and the basis for such action by 1201
either: 1202
a. Certified mail or commercial courier; 1203
b. Personal service; or 1204
c. Mailing a copy of the notice to the rental dwelling owner and posting a 1205
copy of the same notice at the rental dwelling; and 1206
2. Assess the rental dwelling owner for any disproportionate rental fees 1207
corresponding to such rental dwelling that were reduced under this chapter for the currently 1208
applicable license period. 1209
B. Appeal: A rental dwelling owner or agent who receives a notification and 1210
assessment as provided in subsection A of this section may appeal such action in accordance 1211
with the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.75to the Mayor, or the Mayor's designee, by filing a 1212
written request for a hearing with the City's Business Licensing Supervisor. The hearing shall be 1213
conducted pursuant to the procedures set forth in sections 5.02.260 and 5.02.290 of this title or 1214
their successor sections. 1215
C. No Partial Reduction if DisqualifiedFinding Of Noncompliance: If the owner of a 1216
rental dwelling is disqualified fromit is determined that a rental dwelling owner has not complied 1217
with the requirements of the Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program with respect to a particular 1218
rental dwelling during any portion of the licensing period for which a reduction was provided, 1219
the rental dwelling at issue, shall be disqualified from the program, and the disproportionate 1220
rental fee reduction that corresponds to such rental dwelling shall be disallowed for the entirety 1221
of the term of such rental dwelling business license. The rental dwelling owner shall pay the full 1222
disproportionate rental fee for such rental dwelling for that year. 1223
D. Readmission: After disqualification, the rental dwelling at issue may qualify for 1224
readmission to the Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program in the next licensing year only if the 1225
rental dwelling owner has corrected the problems leading to disqualification and has paid all 1226
amounts due in the prior year. 1227
1228
SECTION 19. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.16.100. That Section 1229
5.16.100 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1230
5.16.100: AUCTIONEER'S LICENSE; DENIAL OR REVOCATION CONDITIONS: 1231
An auctioneer's license may be revoked by the city license supervisor, or an application for 1232
issuance or renewal of such license may be refused by the city license supervisor., if he or she 1233
determines, after notice and hearing: 1234
A. Grounds for Revocation or Denial. 1235
31
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
1. That the applicant or license holder has committed any of the violations set forth 1236
in sSection 5.02.250 of this title, or its successor; or 1237
B2. That the application of the applicant or license holder contains any false, 1238
fraudulent or misleading material statements; or 1239
C3. That the applicant or license holder has made any false, fraudulent or misleading 1240
material statement in the course of conducting an auction sale of, or in offering for sale at 1241
auction, any real or personal property (goods, wares or merchandise) in the city; or 1242
D4. That the applicant or license holder has perpetrated a fraud upon any person, 1243
whether or not such fraud was perpetrated in the conduct of an auction in the city; or 1244
E5. That the applicant or license holder has violated any of the statutes of the state 1245
relating to auctions or auctioneers; or 1246
F6. That the applicant or license holder has conducted an auction sale in the city or 1247
offered for sale at an auction in the city, any real or personal property (goods, wares or 1248
merchandise) in an unlawful manner, or in such a manner as to constitute a breach of the 1249
peace or a menace to the health, safety or general welfare of the public. 1250
B. Such determination may be appealed in accordance with Chapter 2.75. 1251
1252
SECTION 20. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.16.110. That 1253
Section 5.16.110 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. 1254
5.16.110: RESERVEDDENIAL OR REVOCATION; REQUIRED NOTICE OF 1255
HEARING: 1256
Notice of the hearing provided for in the preceding section shall be given in writing to the 1257
applicant or license holder as provided in section 5.02.260 of this title, or its successor. The 1258
applicant or license holder shall have the right to be represented at such hearing by counsel. Such 1259
hearing shall be conducted in accordance with chapter 5.02 of this title, or its successor. 1260
1261
SECTION 21. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.40.120. That Section 1262
5.40.120 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1263
5.40.120: LICENSE; REVOCATION CONDITIONS: 1264
Any license granted or extended under this chapter may be revoked or suspended by the Mayor 1265
or the Mayor's designated hearing examiner after a hearing, with notice being given to the 1266
licensee aspursuant to the procedures provided in cChapter 5.02 of this title, or its successor for 1267
32
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
any of the following reasons:, resulting in an affirmative finding by the Mayor or the Mayor's 1268
designated hearing examiner in any of the following: 1269
A. Any misrepresentation made in obtaining a license; 1270
B. A conviction of, or any alleged but as yet unresolved charge that licensee has committed 1271
a crime involving moral turpitude; 1272
C. The violation of any provision of this chapter; 1273
D. A showing of any evidence which provides reasonable grounds for the Mayor to believe 1274
that the licensee has committed or aided in the preparation for or allowed his records, tools, 1275
equipment, facilities or supplies to be used for the commission of any crime. 1276
1277
SECTION 22. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.040. That Section 5.51.040 1278
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed. 1279
5.51.040: LICENSE ENFORCEMENT ACTION; APPLICABILITY:RESERVED 1280
License enforcement actions, as defined in section 5.51.010 of this chapter, are applicable to 1281
alcohol establishments only. Off premises beer retailers are subject, when applicable, to the 1282
enforcement requirements set forth in section 32A-10-103, Utah Code Annotated (2009) or the 1283
enforcement provisions set forth in section 5.02.260 of this title. 1284
1285
SECTION 23. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.050. That Section 5.51.050 1286
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed. 1287
5.51.050: LICENSE ENFORCEMENT ACTION; GROUNDS: RESERVED 1288
In addition to the grounds set forth in section 5.02.250 of this title, the following are grounds for 1289
a license enforcement action: 1290
A. Failure to comply with the terms of a conditional use permit issued by the city under title 1291
21A of this code. 1292
B. Three (3) or more serious or grave disciplinary sanctions, as defined by the Utah 1293
department of alcoholic beverage control, within a three (3) year period. 1294
C. Failure to maintain current and appropriate licensure under title 32A, Utah Code 1295
Annotated (2009), or successor provisions. 1296
1297
33
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SECTION 24. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.060. That Section 5.51.060 1298
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed. 1299
5.51.060: ALCOHOL ENFORCEMENT HEARING BOARD; MEMBERSHIP; 1300
AUTHORITY: RESERVED 1301
A. The alcohol enforcement hearing board hears license enforcement actions and determines 1302
appropriate penalties, based on the guidelines provided in section 5.51.080 of this chapter. 1303
B. The board has three (3) members: one member shall be appointed from the hospitality 1304
industry, one member shall be appointed from the community, and one member shall be 1305
appointed from the city administration. 1306
C. Appointed board members serve for a two (2) year term and may be appointed for two (2) 1307
consecutive terms. The city administration appointee serves as chair. The business licensing 1308
supervisor will provide staff support to the board. 1309
1310
SECTION 25. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.070. That Section 5.51.070 1311
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed. 1312
5.51.070: LICENSE ENFORCEMENT ACTION; PROCEDURES: RESERVED 1313
A. How Initiated: Upon receipt of a complaint regarding an alcohol establishment, the 1314
business license supervisor will review the complaint with the city attorney to determine whether 1315
sufficient grounds and evidence exist to initiate a license enforcement action. The business 1316
license supervisor or city attorney may request city staff to investigate further or obtain 1317
additional evidence before making a determination. 1318
B. Notice Upon Determination To Initiate A License Enforcement Action: If a 1319
determination is made that sufficient grounds exist to proceed, the business licensing supervisor 1320
will schedule a hearing before the alcohol enforcement hearing board. Thirty (30) days' written 1321
notice must be provided to the applicant or licensee. Notice may be served personally or by 1322
registered letter, return receipt requested, at the licensed premises. Receipt by any adult 1323
employee of the business constitutes adequate service. The notice must include a description of 1324
the alleged conduct underlying the complaint; a description of the potential penalties; the date, 1325
time and place the hearing will be conducted; and a statement that the licensee has the right to 1326
appear, be represented by an attorney, call witnesses and present evidence. 1327
C. Hearings: 1328
1. Hearings will be conducted before the alcohol enforcement hearing board. An 1329
audio recording must be made. 1330
34
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
2. The applicant or licensee may be represented by an attorney, call witnesses, 1331
present evidence, and obtain administrative subpoenas from the city recorder as provided in title 1332
2, chapter 2.59 of this code. 1333
3.Strict adherence to the Utah rules of evidence is not required. The board may consider 1334
any relevant, nonprivileged oral or documentary evidence presented. 1335
4. After hearing the evidence presented, the board will make a factual determination, 1336
based on a preponderance of the evidence, whether the alleged grounds for enforcement have 1337
been proven. A finding by at least two (2) board members is sufficient to sustain a determination. 1338
The board may request that counsel for either party draft the findings of fact. 1339
5. If the board determines that there is not sufficient evidence to prove the alleged 1340
grounds for enforcement, then the matter will be dismissed. 1341
6. If the board determines that sufficient evidence exists to prove the grounds for 1342
enforcement, then it must determine the appropriate penalty based on the penalty matrix in 1343
section 5.51.080 of this chapter. The board must issue a written order, which may be drafted by 1344
counsel for either party, referencing its finding of facts, and stating the penalty imposed. 1345
1346
SECTION 26. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.080. That Section 5.51.080 1347
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed. 1348
5.51.080: LICENSE ENFORCEMENT ACTION; PENALTIES: RESERVED 1349
The board is authorized to suspend or revoke a license as provided under section 5.02.250 of this 1350
title. In addition, for violations of subsection 5.51.050A of this chapter, with respect to failure to 1351
comply with the terms of a conditional use permit, the following mandatory minimum penalties 1352
apply with respect to each condition for which a violation is found within a three (3) year period 1353
commencing on the date of the first offense. At the end of this three (3) year period, the tiered 1354
offense cycle starts over. 1355
A. Class I Violations: Violations of conditions that are required pursuant to the table of 1356
permitted and conditional uses found in section 21A.33.020 of this code are class I violations. 1357
1358
1. First offense $ 500.00
2. Second offense 750.00
3. Third offense 1,000.00
4. Subsequent offense 2 day suspension
1359
35
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
B. Class II Violations: Violations of conditions added by the planning commission for the 1360
specific conditional use permit pursuant to the table of permitted and conditional uses found in 1361
section 21A.33.020 of this code are class II violations. 1362
1363
1. First offense $ 250.00
2. Second offense 500.00
3. Third offense 1,000.00
4. Subsequent offense 1 day suspension
1364
C. Multiple Violations: For purposes only of the monetary penalties in this section, violations 1365
found to have occurred on days prior to and up to five (5) days after the licensee has received 1366
notice of the hearing shall constitute a single offense. Each day of violation proved to have 1367
occurred thereafter shall constitute a separate offense. If proven at the hearing, penalties for 1368
multiple violations may be imposed in a single hearing. 1369
1370
SECTION 27. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.090. That Section 5.51.090 1371
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed. 1372
5.51.090: APPEAL: RESERVED 1373
The applicant or licensee and the city may appeal any action of the board to the 3rd district court. 1374
For the purpose of the appeal, the record of the hearing includes the board's written findings and 1375
order, any evidence presented to the board, and the audio recording of the hearing. 1376
1377
SECTION 28. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.61.380. That Section 1378
5.61.380 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1379
5.61.380: APPEAL PROCEDURES: 1380
1381
A. If the license is denied or approved with qualifications, or if a notice of suspension, 1382
revocation or citation of a civil fine is imposed, the applicant or licensee may challenge that 1383
adverse action pursuant to the processes set forth in Chapter 2.75. file an appeal with the 1384
business licensing authority. 1385
B. Filing of an appeal must be within ten (10) days of the date of service of the notice of any 1386
denial, qualified approval, suspension, revocation or civil fine. Upon receiving the notice of such 1387
36
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
appeal, the business licensing authority shall schedule a hearing before a designated hearing 1388
officer within twenty (20) days from the date of the appeal unless such time shall be extended for 1389
good cause. 1390
C. The hearing officer shall hold a public hearing on the record, and take such facts and 1391
evidence as necessary to determine whether the denial, qualified approval, suspension, 1392
revocation or civil fine was proper under the law. 1393
D. The burden of proof shall be on the city. 1394
E. After the hearing, the hearing officer shall have seven (7) working days, unless extended 1395
for good cause, in which to render findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended 1396
decision to the mayor. 1397
F. Either party may object to the recommendation of the hearing officer by filing the party's 1398
objection and reasons, in writing, to the mayor or the mayor's designee within seven (7) days 1399
following the recommendation. In the event the hearing officer recommends upholding a 1400
suspension or revocation, the license shall be immediately suspended, and shall remain 1401
suspended until any subsequent appeal is decided. If no objections are received within the seven 1402
(7) days, the mayor or the mayor's designee may immediately adopt the recommendation of the 1403
hearing officer. 1404
G. If objections are received, the mayor or the mayor's designee shall have ten (10) working 1405
days to consider such objections before issuing the mayor's or the mayor's designee's final 1406
decision. The mayor or the mayor's designee may, in his or her discretion, take additional 1407
evidence or require written memorandum on issues of fact or law. The standard by which the 1408
mayor or the mayor's designee shall review the decision of the hearing officer is whether 1409
substantial evidence exists in the record to support the hearing officer's recommendation. 1410
H. An applicant aggrieved by the mayor's or the mayor's designee's decision shall have 1411
judicial review of such decision pursuant to rule 65.B, Utah rules of civil procedure, or any other 1412
applicable ordinance, statute or rule providing for such review. 1413
1414
SECTION 29. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.63.065. That Section 1415
5.63.065 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1416
5.63.065: DRIVER'S QUALIFICATIONS: 1417
A. Except as hereinafter set forth, no license or renewal of a pedicab driver license shall be 1418
issued to any of the following persons: 1419
1. Any person under the age of eighteen (18) years; 1420
2. Any person who is currently required to register with the sex and kidnap offender registry 1421
pursuant to title 77, chapter 41 of the Utah Code Annotated, or its successor; 1422
3. Any person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, narcotic or 1423
dangerous drugs, a felony conviction for an offense against a person or property, unless a 1424
37
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
period of not less than five (5) years shall have elapsed since the date of conviction or the 1425
date of release from confinement for such offense, whichever is later; 1426
4. Any person who has been convicted of driving a vehicle recklessly within the five (5) 1427
years immediately preceding application for a license; 1428
5. Any person who has been convicted of driving a vehicle while under the influence of 1429
alcohol or a controlled substance, or of being in or about a vehicle while under the 1430
influence of alcohol or a controlled substance with the intent of driving such vehicle, 1431
within the five (5) years immediately preceding application for a license; 1432
6. Any person who has been convicted of two (2) or more felonies. 1433
B. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A3 or A6 of this section, if a hearing 1434
examiner conducting a hearing pursuant to section 5.63.070 of this chapter or its successor 1435
section, receives documents or testimony at a hearing that proves by a preponderance of the 1436
evidence that the applicant has reformed his/her moral character so as to pose no threat to 1437
members of the public, then the hearing examiner may issue the license. Part of the documents or 1438
testimony used to establish the preponderance shall come from the applicant's parole officer if 1439
the applicant is still on parole. An applicant's failure to provide a recommendation from the 1440
applicant's parole officer if the applicant is on parole shall constitute grounds for denying the 1441
applicant's request. 1442
1443
SECTION 30. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.63.070. That Section 1444
5.63.070 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1445
5.63.070: APPEALHEARING UPON REJECTION: 1446
AnyIf the application for a pedicab driver license that is suspended, revoked, or associated 1447
applicationis rejected, the applicant/licensee shall be entitled to appeal such determination in 1448
accordance with Chapter 2.75, upon request, to a hearing before a hearing examiner as provided 1449
in chapter 5.02 of this title, or its successor. 1450
1451
SECTION 31. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.64.750. That Section 1452
5.64.750 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1453
5.64.750: SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION OF LICENSE: 1454
A. In addition to any penalties that may be imposed, any license issued under this article 1455
may be suspended or revoked for any of the following reasons: 1456
38
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
1. Fraud, misrepresentation, or knowingly false statement contained in the application 1457
for the license; 1458
2. Fraud, misrepresentation, or knowingly false statement in the course of carrying on 1459
the business of vending; 1460
3. Conducting the business of vending in any manner contrary to the conditions of the 1461
license; 1462
4. Conducting the business of vending in such a manner as to create a public nuisance; 1463
cause a breach of the peace; constitute a danger to the public health, safety, welfare, 1464
or morals; or interfere with the rights of property owners; or 1465
5. Cancellation of Utah Department of Agriculture authorization, or of the required 1466
authorization of any successor agency, for a food or beverage vending unit due to 1467
uncorrected health or sanitation violations. 1468
B. Any suspension of revocation of a license under this article shall be subject to 1469
Chapters 5.02 and 2.75. The business license administrator shall provide written notice of the 1470
suspension or revocation in a brief statement setting forth the complaint, the grounds for 1471
suspension or revocation, and notifying the licensee or permittee of the appeal procedure. Such 1472
notice shall be mailed to the address shown on the license holder's application by certified mail, 1473
return receipt requested. 1474
C. If the city revokes a vending license or permit, the fee already paid for the license 1475
or permit shall be forfeited. A person whose license or permit has been revoked under this 1476
section may not apply for a new license for a period of one year from the date that the revocation 1477
took effect. 1478
1479
SECTION 32. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.64.760. That Section 5.64.760 1480
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed. 1481
5.64.760: RESERVEDAPPEALS: 1482
If the business license administrator denies the issuance of a license or permit, suspends or 1483
revokes a license or permit, or orders the cessation of any part of the business operation 1484
conducted under the license or permit, the aggrieved party may appeal the administrator's 1485
decision in accordance with sections 5.02.260, 5.02.280, and 5.02.290 of this title. 1486
1487
SECTION 33. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.65.190. That Section 1488
5.65.190 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1489
39
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
5.65.190: DENIAL, SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF BUSINESS LICENSE: 1490
A. The Business License Administrator may revoke or suspend the business license 1491
or deny renewal thereof, of any person to conduct business on the sidewalks of Salt Lake City if 1492
he/she finds: 1493
1. That such person has violated or failed to meet any of the provisions of this 1494
chapter; 1495
2. That there are grounds for denial, suspension or revocation as set forth in 1496
section 5.02.250 of this title, or its successor section, or in any other Ccity 1497
ordinance or State or Federal law or regulation; 1498
3. That such person has been convicted within the last seven (7) years of any crime 1499
involving moral turpitude, narcotic or dangerous drugs, or offenses against a 1500
person or property; 1501
4. Any required license or permit has been suspended, revoked or canceled; or 1502
5. The permittee does not have a currently effective insurance policy in the 1503
minimum amount provided in this chapter; or 1504
6. That the permittee has abandoned the use of the permit operating location for the 1505
conducting of business. The failure of a permittee to vend from a vending cart 1506
within the permittee's permit operating location for thirty (30) continuous 1507
calendar days or more, except during the period of December, January, and 1508
February, shall constitute abandonment. 1509
B. A denial, revocation, or suspension of a license shall be conducted pursuant to the 1510
procedures set forth in Chapter 5.02.Upon denial, suspension or revocation, the Business License 1511
Supervisor shall give notice of such action to the permit holder or applicant, as the case may be, 1512
in writing stating the action he/she has taken and the reasons therefor. Such notice shall contain 1513
the further provision that it shall become final and effective within ten (10) days, unless such 1514
action is the result of a failure of the permittee to maintain liability insurance as required by this 1515
chapter, or is the result of a threat to the public health, safety or welfare in which case the action 1516
shall be effective immediately upon issuance of such notice. Any person receiving such notice, 1517
other than a notice effective upon issuance, shall have ten (10) days from the date of receipt 1518
thereof to file a written request with the Business License Administrator for a hearing thereon 1519
before a hearing examiner appointed by the Mayor. Upon receipt of such request the Business 1520
License Administrator shall schedule a hearing in accordance with the procedures set forth 1521
in chapter 5.02 of this title, or its successor chapter. If the notice of denial, suspension or 1522
revocation is effective upon issuance thereof, as provided in this section, a hearing shall be held 1523
within five (5) business days of the date of issuance without any requirement of a request for 1524
such hearing from the permit holder. 1525
1526
40
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SECTION 34. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.71.010. That Section 1527
5.71.010 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1528
5.71.010: DEFINITIONS: 1529
The following words and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings defined 1530
and set forth in this section: 1531
AIRPORT SHARED RIDE SERVICE: Ground transportation provided by an authorized ground 1532
transportation business contracted through the department of airports to provide on demand 1533
shared ride service to and from the Salt Lake City International Airport. 1534
AIRPORT SHARED RIDE VEHICLE: Any authorized ground transportation vehicle operating 1535
under contract with the department of airports to provide airport shared ride service to and from 1536
the Salt Lake City International Airport. 1537
APPLICANT: An individual who has submitted an application to the department to obtain a 1538
ground transportation vehicle operator's badge pursuant to article VII of this chapter. 1539
AUTHORIZED GROUND TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS: Any business operating any 1540
ground transportation vehicle, which has a current, valid business license as required by the city 1541
and which: 1542
A. Registers the business in accordance with the requirements established by the 1543
department, and 1544
B. Is current with all fees or charges imposed by the department and city. 1545
AUTOMOBILE: Any motor vehicle with passenger seating for five (5) persons or less, not 1546
including the driver. 1547
BUS: Any licensed motor vehicle operated on the streets and highways for hire on a scheduled or 1548
nonscheduled basis with a seating capacity of twenty five (25) or more passengers, not including 1549
the driver. 1550
BUSINESS: A voluntary association legally formed and organized to carry on a business in Utah 1551
in the legal name of the association, including, without limitation, a corporation, limited liability 1552
company, partnership, or sole proprietorship. 1553
BUSINESS LICENSING OFFICE: The department of financedivision of building services and 1554
licensing of Salt Lake City Corporation, or its successor. 1555
CERTIFICATE: A certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the city. 1556
CIVIL NOTICE: A written notice of a ground transportation violation as provided under this 1557
chapter. 1558
COMMENT FORM OR FORM: The form described in section 5.71.270 of this chapter, or its 1559
successor. 1560
41
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
COURTESY VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle regularly operated on Salt Lake City streets for 1561
transportation of customers and/or baggage without making a specific separate charge to the 1562
passenger for such transportation. 1563
DEPARTMENT: The Salt Lake City dDepartment of aAirports or such other city department or 1564
division as may be designated by the mayor to have responsibility for the enforcement of this 1565
chapter. 1566
DEPARTMENT AUTOMATED VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION (AVI) TAG: An electronic 1567
transponder used to identify vehicles and provide the department with vehicle data and billing 1568
information. 1569
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: The director of the department designated by the mayor to have 1570
responsibility for the enforcement of this chapter or the authorized designee of such director. 1571
DEPARTMENT INSPECTION: An inspection of a ground transportation vehicle by the 1572
department to verify that the vehicle meets the standards set by the department director, 1573
department rules and regulations, applicable contracts, and applicable city ordinances, including, 1574
without limitation, the exterior and interior of the vehicle and all associated vehicle licensing, 1575
safety, and insurance requirements. 1576
DEPARTMENT INSPECTION SEAL: A sticker or seal issued by the department to signify that 1577
a ground transportation vehicle has passed the required department inspection. These department 1578
inspection seals are nontransferable and no ground transportation vehicle may be operated 1579
without such seal. 1580
DEPARTMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS: Rules and regulations developed and adopted 1581
by the department director to govern commercial ground transportation operations within the 1582
city. 1583
FIXED SCHEDULE: Ground transportation service operating on a regular time schedule 1584
previously announced as to time of departure and arrival between definitely established and 1585
previously announced points along definitely established and previously announced routes 1586
regardless of whether passengers or freight are to be carried. 1587
GROUND TRANSPORTATION APPEAL COMMITTEE: A committee established by the 1588
department director to hear and rule on appeals, suspensions, and other matters related to ground 1589
transportation in and connected with the city. 1590
GROUND TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS: Any business operating any ground transportation 1591
vehicle. 1592
GROUND TRANSPORTATION SERVICE: The transportation of passengers by a ground 1593
transportation business. 1594
GROUND TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle used for the transportation of 1595
persons using Salt Lake City streets for commercial purposes, regardless of whether a fee or fare 1596
is collected. 1597
HEARING OFFICER: A hearing officer of the Salt Lake City justice court. 1598
42
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
HOLDER: A person to whom a certificate of public convenience and necessity has been issued. 1599
HOTEL VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle regularly operated by a ground transportation business 1600
under contract to or directly by a motel, hotel, or other lodging business, to provide 1601
transportation of customers and/or baggage for the contracted establishment for which 1602
transportation the customer is charged a separate fee or fare, and which is subject to a contract 1603
filed with the department providing for operating the vehicle. 1604
LIMOUSINE: Any vehicle described by its manufacturer or aftermarket manufacturer as a 1605
limousine or a luxury vehicle, with a driver furnished, who is dressed in professional business 1606
attire or a chauffeur's uniform. 1607
MINIBUS: Any motor vehicle with a passenger seating capacity of sixteen (16) to twenty four 1608
(24) persons, not including the driver. 1609
NAMED PARTY: The driver, vehicle owner, or authorized ground transportation business 1610
named in a civil notice issued by the city. 1611
ON DEMAND AIRPORT SERVICE OR ON DEMAND SERVICE: Transportation provided by 1612
an authorized ground transportation business which is not "scheduled service" or "prearranged 1613
service" as defined in this section. 1614
OPERATOR: Persons engaged in the ground transportation business. 1615
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: Those persons who are not acutely ill, who do not require the 1616
services of an ambulance, and who need or desire special transportation equipment or 1617
accommodation for physical or mental infirmities. 1618
PREARRANGED SERVICE: Transportation provided by an authorized ground transportation 1619
business from points within the city to destinations within the city, or beyond, for which the 1620
authorized ground transportation business providing such transportation has recorded the name 1621
or description of prospective passenger and the date and time of the request for transportation at 1622
least thirty (30) minutes prior to the transporting of the passenger by such vehicle. 1623
SCHEDULED SERVICE: Transportation provided by an authorized ground transportation 1624
business on a fixed schedule posted with and approved by the department in advance of such 1625
transportation. 1626
SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle for hire, other than an airport 1627
shared ride vehicle, ambulance, or taxicab, which vehicle is designed, equipped, and used for the 1628
transportation of persons with disabilities. 1629
SPECIALTY VEHICLES: Any vehicles that are unique in their design, or built for a specific 1630
purpose, including, but are not limited to, special conversion vehicles and classic or collector 1631
automobiles, but excluding special transportation vehicles. 1632
STARTER: A person appointed by and representing a ground transportation business who is 1633
responsible for managing the coordination of vehicles and passenger transportation for that 1634
business. 1635
43
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
TAXI STAND: A public place alongside the curb of a street, or elsewhere in the city, which has 1636
been designated by the mayor or the mayor's designee as reserved for the use of taxicabs 1637
available for hire by passengers, including places otherwise marked as freight zones or other 1638
parking restricted zones if designated for use of taxicabs during specified times. 1639
TAXICAB: A motor vehicle used in the on demand, for hire transportation of passengers or 1640
baggage over public streets and not operated over a fixed route or upon a fixed schedule, but 1641
which is subject for contract hire by persons desiring special trips from one point to another, as 1642
provided under chapter 5.72 of this title, or its successor chapter, and authorized to operate in 1643
Salt Lake City by contract with the department. 1644
TERMINAL OF TRANSPORTATION: A facility or location having the primary purpose of 1645
facilitating ground transportation services, such as, but not limited to, the Salt Lake City 1646
Intermodal Hub. 1647
TRAILER: A wheeled vehicle designed to be pulled by a motor vehicle for the transportation of 1648
freight, luggage, or other items. 1649
VAN: Any licensed motor vehicle other than those designated as a limousine with a passenger 1650
seating capacity of six (6) to twelve (12), not including the driver. 1651
VEHICLE OPERATOR'S BADGE OR OPERATOR'S BADGE: An identification badge issued 1652
by the department to an individual to signify that the individual has met the requirements to 1653
operate a ground transportation vehicle. 1654
1655
SECTION 35. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 5.71.300.B. That 1656
Subsection 5.71.300.B of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1657
5.71.300: CIVIL PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT: 1658
B. The department may revoke, suspend, or deny the application for or a renewal of 1659
an operator's badge, department automated vehicle identification tag or department inspection 1660
seal for violations of any provision of this title, department rules and regulations, or other 1661
applicable law. Such action may be appealed in accordance with Chapter 2.75.The person or 1662
business affected may request, in writing filed with the department, an appeal hearing before the 1663
ground transportation appeal committee. Any such revocation, suspension, or denial of renewal 1664
shall remain in effect until the party against whom such action is taken requests reinstatement 1665
and the ground transportation appeal committee determines that reinstatement is appropriate. 1666
1667
SECTION 36. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.71.310. That Section 1668
5.71.310 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1669
44
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
5.71.310: ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES; CIVIL NOTICE OF GROUND 1670
TRANSPORTATION VIOLATION: 1671
Civil notices under this chapter, other than those involving revocations, suspensions, denials or 1672
approvals of a business license, operator's badge, department automated vehicle identification 1673
tags and department inspection seal, may be contested pursuant to the procedures and processes 1674
governing the adjudication of civil notices of violation as set forth in Chapter 2.75section 1675
5.88.030 of this title or its successor section. 1676
1677
SECTION 37. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.71.310. That Section 1678
5.71.320 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed in its entirety: 1679
5.71.320: EXPEDITED APPEAL OF EXCLUSION: 1680
Any named party who is excluded from pursuing commercial activities under this chapter , and 1681
has not had a hearing before the Ground Transportation Appeal Committee regarding such 1682
exclusion as provided for in this chapter, may request an expedited appeal of the action that 1683
resulted in such exclusion. Such appeal shall be requested in writing by the party so excluded to 1684
the department. The department shall promptly investigate the facts relating to such exclusion. If 1685
the evidence indicates such exclusion is improper under this chapter, the Department Director 1686
may reverse the action that resulted in such exclusion. If the Department Director does not 1687
reverse such action, the action resulting in such exclusion shall be heard and determined by the 1688
Ground Transportation Appeal Committee in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. If a 1689
preponderance of the evidence indicates such exclusion is proper under this chapter the Ground 1690
Transportation Appeal Committee shall uphold such exclusion. 1691
1692
SECTION 38. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.72.005. That Section 1693
5.72.005 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1694
5.72.005: DEFINITIONS: 1695
The following words and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings defined 1696
and set forth in this section: 1697
BUSINESS: A voluntary association legally formed and organized to carry on a business in Utah 1698
in the legal name of the association, including, without limitation, a corporation, limited liability 1699
company, partnership, or sole proprietorship. 1700
CERTIFICATE: A certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the city. 1701
CITY: The governmental institution and landmass contained within the boundaries of Salt Lake 1702
City, Utah. 1703
45
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
CIVIL NOTICE: A written notice of a ground transportation violation as provided under this 1704
chapter. 1705
CLEARED: That condition of a taximeter when it is inoperative with respect to all fare 1706
registration and all cumulative fare and extras charges have been set to zero dollars ($0.00). 1707
CONCESSIONAIRE: A person or entity with whom the department of airports has contracted to 1708
provide taxicab services. 1709
DEPARTMENT: The Salt Lake City dDepartment of aAirports or such other city department or 1710
division as may be designated by the mayor to have responsibility for the enforcement of this 1711
chapter. 1712
DEPARTMENT CONTRACT: A valid, existing, and current contract negotiated and approved 1713
by the department for providing taxicab or other services within the corporate boundaries of Salt 1714
Lake City, including the airport. 1715
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: The director of the department designated by the mayor to have 1716
responsibility for the enforcement of this chapter or the authorized designee of such director. 1717
DEPARTMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS: Rules and regulations developed and adopted 1718
by the department director to govern ground transportation service and businesses within the 1719
city. 1720
EXTRAS: Charges to be paid by a customer or passenger in addition to the fare. 1721
FACE: That side of a taximeter upon which passenger or customer charges for hire of a taxicab 1722
are indicated. 1723
FARE: That portion of the charge for hire of a taxicab which is automatically calculated by the 1724
taximeter through the operation of the mileage and time mechanism. 1725
GROUND TRANSPORTATION APPEAL COMMITTEE: A committee established by the 1726
department director to hear and rule on appeals, suspensions, and other matters related to ground 1727
transportation in and connected with the city. 1728
HAIL A TAXICAB: The act of a person to call out for, or to signal for, an in service taxicab that 1729
is not already engaged in transport of passengers to respond to the person's location for hiring 1730
and transport of persons or property. 1731
HIRED: The button on the face of a taximeter, which when activated places the taximeter in 1732
operation, signifying the start of a billing process for the person(s) engaging the use of the 1733
taxicab. 1734
IN SERVICE: A taxicab that is in use on the streets of the city, with a driver, and available for 1735
the transportation of passengers for hire. 1736
PERSON: An individual, a corporation or other legal entity, a partnership, and any incorporated 1737
association. 1738
TAXI STAND: A public place alongside the curb of a street, or elsewhere in the city, which has 1739
been designated by the mayor or the mayor's designee as reserved for the use of taxicabs 1740
46
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
available for hire by passengers, including places otherwise marked as freight zones or other 1741
parking restricted zones if designated for use of taxicabs during specified times. 1742
TAXICAB: A motor vehicle with a seating capacity of five (5) passengers or less, not including 1743
the driver, or a van with a passenger seating capacity of six (6) to twelve (12), not including the 1744
driver, used in the on demand, for hire transportation of passengers or baggage over the public 1745
streets and not operated over a fixed route or upon a fixed schedule, but which is subject for 1746
contract hire by persons desiring special trips from one point to another and authorized to operate 1747
in Salt Lake City by contract with the department. 1748
TAXIMETER: A meter instrument or electronic device attached to a taxicab which measures 1749
mileage by the distance driven and the waiting time upon which the fare is based, and which 1750
automatically calculates, at a predetermined rate or rates, and registers, the charge for hire of a 1751
taxicab. 1752
WAITING TIME: The time when a taxicab is not in motion, from the time of hiring by a 1753
passenger to the time of discharge of passenger(s). 1754
1755
SECTION 39. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 5.72.855.B. That 1756
Subsection 5.72.855.B of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1757
B. The department may revoke, suspend, or deny renewal of an operator's badge, 1758
department automated vehicle identification tag or department inspection seal for violations of 1759
any provision of this title, department rules and regulations, or other applicable law. Such action 1760
may be appealed in accordance with Chapter 2.75.The person or business affected may request, 1761
in writing filed with the department, an appeal hearing before the Ground Transportation Appeal 1762
Committee. Any such revocation, suspension, or denial of renewal shall remain in effect until the 1763
party against whom such action is taken requests reinstatement and the Ground Transportation 1764
Appeal Committee determines that reinstatement is appropriate. 1765
1766
SECTION 40. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.72.890. That Section 1767
5.72.890 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1768
5.72.890: ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES; CIVIL NOTICE OF GROUND 1769
TRANSPORTATION VIOLATION: 1770
Civil notices under this chapter, other than those involving revocations, suspensions, denials, or 1771
approvals of a business license, operator's badge, department automated vehicle identification 1772
tags and department inspection seal, may be contested pursuant to the procedures and processes 1773
governing the adjudication of civil notices of violation as set forth in Chapter 2.75section 1774
5.88.030 of this title or its successor section. 1775
47
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
1776
SECTION 41. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.72.900. That Section 1777
5.72.900 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed as follows: 1778
5.72.900: EXPEDITED APPEAL OF EXCLUSION: 1779
Any named party who is excluded from pursuing commercial activities under this chapter, and 1780
has not had a hearing before the Ground Transportation Appeal Committee regarding such 1781
exclusion as provided for in this chapter, such party may request an expedited appeal of the 1782
action that resulted in such exclusion. Such appeal shall be requested in writing by the party so 1783
excluded to the department. The department shall promptly investigate the facts relating to such 1784
exclusion. If the evidence indicates such exclusion is improper under this chapter, the 1785
Department Director may reverse the action that resulted in such exclusion. If the Department 1786
Director does not reverse such action, the action resulting in such exclusion shall be heard and 1787
determined by the Ground Transportation Appeal Committee in accordance with the provisions 1788
of this chapter. If a preponderance of the evidence indicates such exclusion is proper under this 1789
chapter the Ground Transportation Appeal Committee shall uphold such exclusion. 1790
1791
SECTION 42. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.74.170. That Section 1792
5.74.170 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1793
5.74.170: LICENSE; REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION; CONDITIONS: 1794
A. The licensee shall be responsible for the operation of the licensed premises in 1795
conformance with this code. Upon a finding by the mayor of a violation, after hearing before the 1796
mayor, or his or her designee, or upon conviction of the licensee, operator, agent or any person 1797
of the following violations occurring in or on the premises licensed pursuant to this chapter, tThe 1798
mayorcity may revoke or suspend the license or licenses covering the businesses conducted on 1799
such premises, regardless of the ownership thereof, for a period of time up to and including one 1800
year for the following violations: 1801
1. A violation or conviction of Utah cCode section 76-9-301.8, 76-9-702, or 76-10-1802
1206; 1803
2. A violation of any provision set forth in this chapter; 1804
3. A violation or conviction of any ordinance referred to in 1805
section 5.74.040 or 5.74.070 of this chapter; or a violation or conviction of 1806
section 5.28.060 of this title or section 11.16.100 of this code, or their successors; 1807
4. Violations or convictions of any material misrepresentation, or for any fraud 1808
perpetrated on the licensing authority through application or operation of such 1809
business; 1810
48
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
5. A violation of any law of the state, or ordinance of the city which affects the health, 1811
welfare and safety of its residents, and which violation occurred as a part of the main 1812
business activity licensed under this chapter and not incidental thereto; 1813
6. A violation or conviction of showing motion pictures for which the establishment is 1814
not properly licensed as required by this chapter. 1815
B. The foregoing provisions of this section, or its successor, notwithstanding, 1816
nothing herein shall authorize a revocation or suspension of any license of any theater, motion 1817
picture house or concert hall based on a prior conviction or violation of exhibiting or distributing 1818
obscene material. 1819
1820
SECTION 43. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.74.180. That Section 1821
5.74.180 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1822
5.74.180: LICENSE; SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION; PROCEDURES: 1823
A. Hearing And Notice: Any suspension or revocation of a license pursuant to this 1824
chapter shall not be had until a hearing is first held before the mayor or the mayor's designee be 1825
conducted as provided in Chapter 5.02 of this title or its successor. Reasonable notice of the time 1826
and place of such hearing, together with notice of the nature of charges or complaint against the 1827
licensee or its premises sufficient to reasonably inform the licensee and enable him or her to 1828
answer such charges and complaint, shall be served upon the licensee as provided by the Utah 1829
rules of civil procedure. Any decision to revoke or suspend a license shall be stayed until the 1830
time period for appealing the decision has expired or a decision on any appeal is issued pursuant 1831
to the provisions of Chapter 2.75. 1832
B. Exhaustion Of Remedies: If a violation is found by the mayor or hearing 1833
examiner, or a conviction is obtained under subsection 5.74.170A1 of this chapter, or its 1834
successor, such revocation or suspension shall not take effect until the license holder or 1835
individual found in violation or convicted thereunder has had opportunity to exhaust all his or 1836
her administrative and appellate remedies. 1837
1838
SECTION 44. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.88.030. That Section 1839
5.88.030 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1840
5.88.030: ENFORCEMENT INVOLVING NOTICES OF VIOLATION: 1841
1842
A. Notices of violation shall be adjudicated as civil violations in accordance with the 1843
procedures set forth in title 2, cChapter 2.75 of this Code. 1844
1845
49
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
B. Any person having received a notice of violation, as provided in this chapter, shall appear 1846
before a City Hearing Officer and present and contest such alleged violation. 1847
1848
C. The burden to prove any defense shall be upon the person raising such defense. Nothing 1849
herein shall affect the City's burden to prove each element of the underlying charge by a 1850
preponderance of evidence. 1851
1852
D. If the City Hearing Officer finds that no violation as set forth in the notice of violation 1853
has occurred or that such a violation has occurred but one (1) or more of the affirmative defenses 1854
set forth in this section is applicable, the Hearing Officer may dismiss the notice of violation and 1855
release the recipient of the notice from liability thereunder or the Hearing Officer may reduce the 1856
penalty associated therewith. Such affirmative defenses are: 1857
1858
1. At the time of the receipt of the notice of violation, the person receiving such notice of 1859
violation: 1860
1861
a. Was not an owner or other responsible party with respect to the business at issue; and 1862
b. Did not engage in any actions or omissions that contributed to the violation at issue; 1863
2. Compliance with the subject ordinances would have presented an imminent and 1864
irreparable injury to persons or property; 1865
3. All remedial requirements outlined in the notice of violation were completed on or before 1866
the compliance date; 1867
4. Such other mitigating circumstances expressly described in this title that correspond to 1868
specific violations of an ordinance in this title; or 1869
5. Such other mitigating circumstances as may be approved by the City Attorney's Office. 1870
1871
E. Any person not satisfied with the outcome of their appearance before the City Hearing 1872
Officer with respect to the notice of violation they received, may appear before the small claims 1873
court to contest such alleged violation. 1874
1875
BF. If the alleged ordinance violation involves an ordinance for which a more specific 1876
enforcement provision is set forth thereinlocated in chapter 5.08, 5.09, 5.14, 5.15, 5.51, 5.61, 1877
5.71, or 5.72 of this title, then the more specific enforcement provisions and processes set forth 1878
in the chapter that corresponds to the violation shall supersede the provisions of this section. 1879
1880
SECTION 45. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.88.040. That Section 1881
5.88.040 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1882
5.88.040: PENALTIES FOR CIVIL VIOLATIONS: 1883
A. The following penalties shall be imposed where a notice of violation is issued for 1884
a violation of the Ccity ordinances set forth in this title: 1885
1. Where a notice of violation has been issued for a first violation of a Ccity 1886
ordinance, such notice of violation shall constitute a written warning. 1887
50
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
2. Where a notice of violation has been issued for a second violation of a Ccity 1888
ordinance, the recipient of such notice of violation shall pay a civil penalty of two 1889
hundred fifty dollars ($250.00). 1890
3. Where a notice of violation has been issued for a third violation of a Ccity 1891
ordinance, the recipient of such notice of violation shall pay a civil penalty of five 1892
hundred dollars ($500.00). 1893
4. Where a notice of violation has been issued for a fourth or subsequent violation of 1894
a Ccity ordinance, the recipient of such notice of violation shall: 1895
a. Pay a civil penalty of five hundred dollars ($500.00); and 1896
b. Shall be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year from the date on 1897
which the notice of violation was issued. 1898
5. If, during the period of probation specified in subsection A4b of this section, a 1899
notice of violation is issued for a violation of the same ordinance that resulted in 1900
such probation, then: 1901
a. The recipient of such notice of violation shall pay a civil penalty of five 1902
hundred dollars ($500.00); 1903
b. The business license of the recipient of such notice of violation shall be 1904
revoked; and 1905
c. The recipient of such notice of violation may not reapply for a new business 1906
license for at least six (6) months from the date of revocation. 1907
B. Any reference to second, third, fourth, and subsequent violations refers to repeat 1908
violations of the same Ccity ordinance that occur within a twenty four (24) month period. Unless 1909
a specified citation interval is provided by ordinance related to the specific violation or license at 1910
issue, then citations for ongoing violations may be issued every fifteen (15) calendar days. 1911
C. The Ccity may not revoke a business license pursuant to subsection A5b of this 1912
section without satisfying the due process requirements set forth in Ssections 5.02.250, 5.02.260, 1913
and 5.02.290 of this title. 1914
D. If the alleged ordinance violation involves an ordinance for which a more specific 1915
enforcement provision or penalty is set forth thereinlocated in chapter 5.08, 5.09, 5.14, 5.15, 1916
5.51, 5.61, 5.71, or 5.72 of this title, then the more specific enforcement provisions, processes, 1917
and penalties set forth in the chapter that corresponds to the violation shall supersede the 1918
provisions of this section. 1919
1920
SECTION 46. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 8.04.020. That Section 1921
8.04.020 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1922
51
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
8.04.020: ANIMAL SERVICES: 1923
Animal services may be provided through a legally executed agreement, which includes the 1924
authority and power to enforce this title. Alternatively, the city may elect to provide its own 1925
animal services without entering into a contract with an outside provider. In the event that animal 1926
control services are provided by another political subdivision, the duly enacted ordinances and 1927
regulations of that political subdivision shall apply and supersede the requirements of this Title. 1928
1929
SECTION 47. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 8.15.025. That Section 1930
8.15.025 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1931
1932
8.15.025: NOTICES OF VIOLATION: 1933
1934
A. Notices of violations shall be adjudicated as civil violations in the small claims court in 1935
accordance with the procedures set forth in title 2, cChapter 2.75 of this code. 1936
1937
B. Any person having received a notice of violation, as provided in this chapter, may appear 1938
before the small claims court and present and contest such alleged violation. 1939
1940
C. The burden to prove any defense shall be upon the person raising such defense. Nothing 1941
herein shall affect the city's burden to prove each element of the underlying charge by a 1942
preponderance of evidence. 1943
1944
D. If the administrative hearing officer finds that no violation as set forth in the notice of 1945
violation has occurred or that such a violation has occurred but one or more of the affirmative 1946
defenses set forth in this section is applicable, the hearing officer may dismiss the notice of 1947
violation and release the recipient of the notice from liability thereunder or the hearing officer 1948
may reduce the penalty associated therewith. Such affirmative defenses are: 1949
1950
1. At the time of the receipt of the notice of violation, the person receiving such 1951
notice of violation was not the owner or the person responsible for the animal and 1952
his/her actions did not contribute to the issuance of the notice of violation; 1953
2. Compliance with the subject ordinances would have presented an imminent and 1954
irreparable injury to persons or property; or 1955
3. Such other mitigating circumstances as may be approved by the city law 1956
department. 1957
1958
1959
SECTION 48. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 9.08.115.B. That 1960
Subsection 9.08.115.B of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as 1961
follows: 1962
52
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
1963
B. Any violation of this chapter shall constitute a civil violation and shall be handled as 1964
provided by title 2, cChapter 2.75 of this code. Notice of a civil violation may be given:(1) to an 1965
owner, occupant, lessee, or agent of the property by hand delivery or 2) by mailing of the notice 1966
by first class mail to the owner of record. Civil penalties shall be imposed as follows: 1967
1968
Section Of This Chapte Penalt
9.08.030G $50.00 per violatio
9.08.090 and 9.08.095 $25.00 for the first citation
$50.00 for the second citation within 6
months of the first citation
$100.00 for the third citation within 6 months
of the first citatio
1969
1970
1971
SECTION 49. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 11.14.050. That Section 1972
11.14.050 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 1973
11.14.050: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS: 1974
1975
A. A Salt Lake City justice court shall consider matters relating to services fees. Service fees 1976
and costs imposed pursuant to this chapter shall be adjudicated as civil violations in accordance 1977
with Chapter 2.75. 1978
1979
B. Any person having received notice of the assessment of a services fee may appear before 1980
the Salt Lake City justice court and present and contest the alleged violation upon which the 1981
services fee was based. 1982
1983
C. If the Salt Lake City justice court finds that no violation occurred and one or more of the 1984
defenses set forth in this section is applicable, the justice court may dismiss the services fee 1985
notice, release the defendant from liability for the services fee, or modify the services fee as 1986
justice and equity may require. Such defenses are: 1987
1988
1. Wrong name and address on the services fee notice; 1989
2. Compliance with the subject ordinances would have presented an imminent and 1990
irreparable injury to persons or property; 1991
3. Such other mitigating circumstances as may be shown by the appellant. 1992
1993
D. If the Salt Lake City justice court finds that a services fee was properly imposed and no 1994
applicable defense exists, the justice court may, in the interest of justice and on behalf of the city, 1995
enter into an agreement for the timely or periodic payment of the services fee. 1996
1997
1998
53
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SECTION 50. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 12.24.016. That Section 1999
12.24.016 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 2000
12.24.016: RESERVEDVEHICLE OWNER DRIVING WITHOUT OWNER'S AND 2001
OPERATOR'S SECURITY: 2002
2003
A. It is unlawful for any owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which a security is 2004
required under Utah motor vehicle owner's or operator's security laws, to drive such motor 2005
vehicle or permit such motor vehicle to be driven upon streets or highways within the corporate 2006
limits of the city, without security being in effect, as required by the Utah financial responsibility 2007
of motor vehicle owner's and operator's act, section 41-12a-301 et seq., Utah Code Annotated, or 2008
their successor sections. 2009
2010
B. The foregoing notwithstanding, no person cited for a violation of this section shall be 2011
adjudged guilty of a violation hereof, if such person produces reasonable evidence before the 2012
justice court in accordance with the procedures set forth in title 2, chapter 2.75 of this code, or its 2013
successor, that such security was in effect at the time such person was issued a citation for failure 2014
to have such evidence in his or her possession. Evidence of such security being in effect may be 2015
in the form of an identification card approved by the Utah department of public safety for 2016
issuance by an insurer to its insured with respect to the motor vehicle. 2017
2018
C. An increased penalty may be imposed for a second and subsequent offense within three 2019
(3) years of a previous conviction or forfeiture of penalty. 2020
2021
2022
SECTION 51. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 12.24.018. That Section 2023
12.24.018 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 2024
2025
12.24.018: RESERVEDDRIVING WITHOUT OWNER'S AND OPERATOR'S 2026
SECURITY: 2027
2028
A. It is unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle which is subject to the 2029
requirements of insurance contained in the Utah financial responsibility of motor vehicle owner's 2030
and operator's act, section 41-12a-301 et seq., Utah Code Annotated, or their successor sections, 2031
anywhere within the corporate limits of the city, knowing that the owner of the motor vehicle 2032
does not have security in effect as required by the Utah financial responsibility of motor vehicle 2033
owner's and operator's act. 2034
2035
B. The foregoing notwithstanding, no person cited for a violation of this section shall be 2036
adjudged guilty of a violation hereof if such person produces reasonable evidence before the 2037
justice court, in accordance with the procedures set forth in title 2, chapter 2.75 of this code, or 2038
its successor, that said security was in effect at the time such person was issued a citation for 2039
failure to have such evidence in his or her possession. Evidence of such security being in effect 2040
54
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
may be in the form of an identification card approved by the Utah department of public safety for 2041
issuance by an insurer to its insured with respect to the motor vehicle. 2042
2043
C. An increased penalty may be imposed for a second and subsequent offense within three 2044
(3) years of a previous conviction or forfeiture of penalty. 2045
2046
2047
SECTION 52. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 12.56.570. That Section 2048
12.56.570 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 2049
2050
12.56.570: UNAUTHORIZED USE OF STREETS; APPEAL PROCEDURES: 2051
2052
A. The Mayor shall appoint such Hearing Officers as he or she deems appropriate to 2053
consider matters relating to the unauthorized use of streets. 2054
2055
AB. Any person having received a citation as to unauthorized use of streetsnotice of 2056
such unauthorized use, or the owner of any vehicle employed in such use, may appeal such 2057
notice pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.75appear before a Hearing Officer and 2058
present and contest such alleged unauthorized use. 2059
2060
C. The burden to prove any defense shall be upon the person raising such defense. 2061
2062
D. The Hearing Officer may find that no unauthorized use occurred and dismiss the ticket. 2063
2064
BE. If the hearing officer or administrative appealsHearing oOfficer, as applicable, 2065
finds that an unauthorized use occurred but one or more of the defenses set forth in this section is 2066
applicable, theythe Hearing Officer may dismiss the notice of unauthorized use and release the 2067
owner or driver from liability thereunder. Such defenses are: 2068
2069
1. At the time of the receipt of the notice, possession of the subject vehicle had been 2070
acquired by a third party in violation of the criminal laws of the State; 2071
2. If the notice of unauthorized use of streets alleges a violation of any ordinance 2072
pertaining to a parking meter, such meter was mechanically malfunctioning to the 2073
extent that its reliability is questionable; 2074
3. Compliance with the subject ordinances would have presented an imminent and 2075
irreparable injury to persons or property; 2076
4. CitationsParking notices for overtime parking at ain metered or in a time restricted 2077
zones received by a Ccity employee or guest while on official Salt Lake City business 2078
will be dismissed upon written request from the applicable Ddepartment Ddirector or 2079
designee on official letterhead or by electronic mail. The request must be made within 2080
ten (10) days of receipt of the citationnotice and must include a brief description of 2081
the reason for the request, and be submitted to the: Salt Lake City Corporation 2082
director of revenue operations, Traffic Manager, 333 South 200 East, P.O. Box 2083
55
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
145499, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5499. Parking violations other than overtime 2084
parking and meter violations will not be dismissed in this manner; 2085
5. Unlimited time parking by employees of other governmental entities on official 2086
business exempt vehicles will be allowed at Ccity meters and time restricted 2087
locations. In order to qualify, the exempt vehicle must either be a marked official 2088
vehicle pursuant to Section 12.56.590, or it must be included in the city’s exempt 2089
databasedisplay a placard or sticker issued by Salt Lake City Parking Enforcement or 2090
the vehicle's license plate must be registered with Salt Lake City Parking 2091
Enforcement for enrollment in any license plate recognition system used to regulate 2092
parking enforcement. Requests for placards must include a brief description of the 2093
reason for the request and be submitted to: Salt Lake City Parking Enforcement, P.O. 2094
Box 145552, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5552. Requests for dismissals of other 2095
parking violations will may be considered and should be submitted to the: Salt Lake 2096
City Corporation director of revenue operations, Traffic Manager, 333 South 200 2097
East, P.O. Box 145499, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5499; 2098
6. If the Hearing Officer finds that the owner of the vehicle is deceased but was living 2099
when the ticket was issued; 2100
7. If the Hearing Officer finds that the vehicle was sold by a third party with the original 2101
license plates on, and the citation was issuedticket was received prior to the sale, 2102
provided the sale is reported to the DMV and the bill of sale is submittedprovided 2103
within twenty (20) days of receipt of the parking citationnotice. 2104
2105
CF. If the hearing officer or administrative appealsHearing oOfficer, as applicable, finds that 2106
an unauthorized use occurred but one or more of the defenses set forth in this section is 2107
applicable, they Hearing Officer may reduce the penalty associated therewith, but in no event 2108
shall such penalty be reduced below the sum of ten dollars ($10.00). Such defenses are: 2109
2110
1. At the time of receipt of the notice, possession of the subject vehicle had been 2111
acquired by another party pursuant to a written lease agreement or similar written 2112
agreement; 2113
2. The subject vehicle was mechanically incapable of being moved from such location; 2114
provided, however, such defense shall not apply to any vehicle which remains at such 2115
location in excess of six (6) hours; 2116
3. Any markings, signs or other indicia of parking use regulation were not clearly visible 2117
or comprehensible; 2118
4. At the time of the notice of violation a responsible person receiving such notice of 2119
violation had, but failed to properly display, a special disability group license plate or 2120
placard that was valid and relevant to the violation for which the citation was 2121
issuednotice of violation. However, a Hearing Officer may not reduce the associated 2122
civil penalty below the minimum penalty amount set forth in Utah Code section 41-2123
1a-1306, or its successor section; 2124
5. At the time a citation issued for failure to display of the notice of violation a 2125
residential parking permit a valid residential parking permit existed, but such permit 2126
was valid but not properly displayed; 2127
6. Such other mitigating circumstances as the Hearing Officer may find, with the written 2128
have been approved by the parking civil manager approval of the court's Traffic 2129
56
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Manager, which must include the basis for the decision. A report on such decisions is 2130
to be provided to the Mayor and City Council on a quarterly basis. 2131
2132
G. If the Hearing Officer finds that an unauthorized use occurred and no applicable defense 2133
exists, the Hearing Officer may, in the interest of justice and on behalf of the City, enter into an 2134
agreement for the timely or periodic payment of the applicable penalty. 2135
2136
DH. If the penalty imposed pursuant to this chapter remains unsatisfied after forty (40) 2137
days from the receipt of the citationnotice, or ten (10) days from such date as may have been 2138
agreed to by the Hearing Officer, the cCity may use such lawful means as are available to collect 2139
such penalty, including costs and attorney fees. Such collection efforts shall be stayed while an 2140
appeal is pending before a hearing officer or administrative appeals officer pursuant to Chapter 2141
2.75. 2142
2143
2144
SECTION 53. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 14.20.110. That Section 2145
14.20.110 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 2146
2147
14.20.110: FAILURE TO REMOVE HAIL, SNOW, ICE AND SLEET; CIVIL 2148
PENALTIES: 2149
2150
A. Any owner, occupant, lessor, or agent of property abutting a paved city sidewalk who 2151
fails to comply with sSection 14.20.070 of this chapter commitsis guilty of a civil violation. Such 2152
violation shall be handled by the Salt Lake City justice court in accordance with the procedures 2153
set forth in title 2, cChapter 2.75 of this code, or its successor. Notice of a civil violation may be 2154
given: 1) to the owner, occupant, lessor, or agent of the property by hand delivery, or 2) by 2155
mailing of the notice by first class mail to the owner of record. 2156
2157
B. The civil penalty for violation of this section shall be as set forth below: 2158
2159
1. For any property with street front footage of two hundred feet (200') or less: 2160
2161
a. Fifty dollars ($50.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet is not 2162
removed from sidewalks within twenty four (24) hours; 2163
b. Seventy five dollars ($75.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet is not 2164
removed from sidewalks within forty eight (48) hours; and 2165
c. One hundred dollars ($100.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet is 2166
not removed from sidewalks within seventy two (72) hours. 2167
2168
2. For any property with street front footage of more than two hundred feet (200'): 2169
2170
a. One hundred dollars ($100.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet is 2171
not removed from sidewalks within twenty four (24) hours; 2172
57
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
b. One hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet 2173
is not removed from sidewalks within forty eight (48) hours; and 2174
c. Two hundred dollars ($200.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet is 2175
not removed from sidewalks within seventy two (72) hours. 2176
2177
2178
SECTION 54. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 14.32.625. That Section 2179
14.32.625 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 2180
14.32.625: APPEAL OF SUSPENSION, REVOCATION, OR STOP ORDER: 2181
2182
Any suspension or revocation or stop order by the city engineer may be appealed in accordance 2183
with the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.75by the permittee to the director of public services by 2184
filing a written notice of appeal within ten (10) days of the action of the city engineer. The 2185
director of public services shall hear such appeal, if written request therefor be timely filed, as 2186
soon as practicable, and render his/her decision within a reasonable time following filing of 2187
notice of appeal. 2188
2189
SECTION 55. Amending the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. That the Salt 2190
Lake City consolidated fee schedule shall be, and hereby is, amended, in pertinent part, to reflect 2191
the fees set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and that a copy of the amended Salt Lake City 2192
consolidated fee schedule shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website. 2193
2194
SECTION 56. Effective Date. That this ordinance shall become effective on the date of 2195
publication. 2196
2197
2198
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _______ day of 2199
________________, 2025. 2200
2201
______________________________ 2202
CHAIRPERSON 2203
2204
ATTEST: 2205
2206
2207
______________________________ 2208
CITY RECORDER 2209
58
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
2210
2211
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________________. 2212
2213
Mayor’s Action: _____Approved. _____Vetoed. 2214
2215
2216
______________________________ 2217
M R O Y A2218
2219
ATTEST: 2220
2221
2222
____________________________ 2223
CITY RECORDER 2224
2225
2226
(SEAL) 2227
2228
Bill No. _______ of 2025. 2229
Published: ____________________. 2230
2231
Ordinance Establishing Uniform Administrative Hearing Process_v8 2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
GENERAL FUNDS MISCELLANEOUS FEES
For questions regarding General Funds Miscellaneous Fees contact: TBD
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Collection Fee $64 3.16.050
Administrative Enforcement Hearing Fee $81 2.75.170
Legal Fee $248 2.75.040
Credit Card Use Surcharge 2.4%
This fee will be added at the register to all qualifying credit card
transactions described in Section 3.16.060 of the Salt Lake City Code.
**Max Galaxy, Sportsman software and Library Parking Garage does
not assess the credit card charge**
3.16.060
Pedestrian Crosswalk Flags
Plain Orange Non-Reflective Crosswalk Flag $2.10 Sponsor chooses which type of flag to use and is responsible for keeping the flags in stock. No fees assessed for flags sponsored in school zones.12.76.100
Orange Reflective Crosswalk Flag $2.10
Sponsor chooses which type of flag to use and is responsible for
keeping the flags in stock. No fees assessed for flags sponsored in
school zones.
12.76.100
Return Check or EFT Transfer $20 2.61.030
Loan Application Fee $120 Each 03.16.005
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 1
Exhibit A
or fine amount, whichever is less
This page has intentionally been left blank
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
04/08/2025
Date Sent to Council:
04/15/2025
From:
Department *
Finance
Employee Name:
Garcia, Arturo
E-mail
Arturo.Garcia@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
04/11/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
04/15/2025
Subject:
Ordinance Amending Administrative Hearing Process
Additional Staff Contact:
Lisa Hunt (801)535-7926, Arturo Garcia (801)535-6502 and Katherine Pasker (801)535-7633
Presenters/Staff Table
Lisa Hunt (801)535-7926, Arturo Garcia (801)535-6502 and Katherine Pasker (801)535-7633
Document Type
Ordinance
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
The Administration recommends the City Council adopt amendments to Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.75, Enforcement of Civil Violations.
Background/Discussion
The proposed Administrative Appeals Process will streamline and modernize the appeal process. The process replaces Small Claims Court appeals with an Administrative Appeals process, creating a consistent practice for all city departments.
Under this proposal:•Hearing Officers will continue to conduct initial informal reviews, resolving straightforward disputes. Addressing these cases early prevents unnecessary appeals and saves time for both the city and the public.•If a constituent disagrees with the initial decision, they may appeal to an Administrative Appeals Officer, who will conduct an informal de novo hearing. This process ensures impartial reconsideration while maintaining efficiency.•An appeal fee will be required but is reimbursed if the citation is found invalid, discouraging frivolous appeals while preserving fairness.
Benefits of the Administrative Arbiter Process:•Efficiency & Accessibility: Eliminates court delays, procedural complexity, and financial barriers for constituents.•Specialized Review: The Administrative Appeals Officer will have expertise in municipal regulations, ensuring informed and consistent decisions.•Cost-Effectiveness: Reduces expenses for both the city and constituents by streamlining case resolution and limiting the burden on the judicial system.•Fairness & Transparency: Ensures due process while promoting consistency in citation dispute resolutions.
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
Public Hearing
This page has intentionally been left blank
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1
No. _____ of 2025 2
3
(Providing a general administrative hearing process for violations of the Salt Lake City Code) 4
5
An ordinance amending Titles 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 16 of the Salt Lake City Code to 6
establish a uniform administrative hearing process for civil violations of city code. 7
WHEREAS, a petition was submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall to amend portions of 8
Salt Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to an administrative hearing process for the 9
resolution of administrative citations; and 10
WHEREAS, the city has a significant interest in the timely and effective resolution of 11
appeals of administrative citations in a manner that provides due process of law; and 12
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the Salt Lake City Council has 13
determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. 14
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, 15
as follows: 16
SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.59. That Chapter 2.59 17
of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 18
19
2.59.010: PURPOSE: 20
21
It is the purpose of this chapter to provide for the issuance of city subpoenas for any reason to the 22
full extent authorized by state law, including, but not limited to, Utah Code Ssection 10-3-610, 23
Utah Code Annotated. 24
25
2.59.020: EXECUTIVE BRANCH SUBPOENAS: 26
27
The executive branch may authorize subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses located 28
within the state to give testimony or to produce records and documents or other items. 29
30
2
A. A subpoena may be authorized upon signature of the mayor or his or her designee or by a 31
department head. 32
33
B. All executive subpoenas must also be endorsed by the city attorney, deputy city attorney, 34
or any assistant city attorney. The attorney's signature shall be an affirmation the subpoena is an 35
appropriate exercise of administrative power prior to the recorder issuing the subpoena. 36
37
2.59.030: LEGISLATIVE BRANCH SUBPOENAS: 38
39
The city council may authorize a subpoena upon a majority vote of the council. Such subpoenas 40
shall be signed by any member of the council voting to authorize the subpoena. Upon such vote 41
and signature, the subpoena shall be reviewed and approved "as to form" by the city attorney, 42
deputy city attorney or any assistant city attorney and shall then be issued by the city recorder. 43
44
2.59.035: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICERLAW JUDGE SUBPOENAS: 45
46
A. A city appointed administrative appeals officer may issue subpoenas in connection with 47
administrative hearings conducted pursuant to Sections 2.75.190 and 2.24.050 and Chapters 48
21A.16 and 21A.18 to compel the attendance of persons or the production of nonprivileged 49
and/or nonconfidential documents at such proceedings. 50
51
B. The administrative appeals officer shall not issue the subpoena if (1) the documents or 52
testimony sought by the subpoena are not relevant, (2) the documents or testimony sought by the 53
subpoena are not helpful to decide the issues at the hearing considering the significance and 54
nature of the factual disputes at issue in the hearing, (3) the subpoena is intended to harass or 55
annoy any party or the subject thereof, or (4) the subpoena is requested for the purpose of delay 56
or to cause an undue burden. 57
58
C. The administrative appeals officer shall consider objections by the parties and any non-59
party subject to a subpoena pursuant to the applicable policies and procedures for such 60
administrative hearing. 61
62
D. The administrative appeals officer shall comply with the procedures for issuance of a 63
subpoena as set forth in the applicable policies and procedures for such administrative hearing. 64
65
2.59.040: ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS: 66
67
A. All cityexecutive or legislative subpoenas shall be issued by the city recorder's office. 68
The recorder's office shall keep a record containing: 1) the date of issuance, 2) the matter for 69
which the subpoena was issued, 3) returns of all subpoenas, and 4) at whose request the 70
subpoena was issued. 71
72
B. All executive or legislative subpoenas shall be issued with an original and a copy. The 73
original, together with proof of service, shall be returned to the recorder's office and a copy left 74
with the person upon whom it is served. 75
76
3
C. The subpoena shall be issued in the name of the city and shall be entitled "city subpoena" 77
and shall state whether it is before the legislative branch or the executive branch. The subpoena 78
shall state the title of the matter being heard and shall command each person to whom it is 79
directed to attend and give testimony and/or produce records or documents at a time and place 80
specified in the body of the subpoena. 81
82
D. Nothing in this section shall limit the city's authority to issue subpoenas in criminal 83
matters as provided by law. 84
85
2.59.050: PRODUCTION OF RECORDS OR DOCUMENTS: RESERVED 86
87
Any party may subpoena public records or documents from the city. No party, including the city, 88
may require documents to be produced which are confidential in accordance with state law, or 89
city policy or procedure, or which are private papers of the government. Police internal affairs 90
files are confidential and private files and may not be produced. Ongoing criminal investigations 91
are also confidential and private files and may not be produced. 92
93
2.59.060: SERVICE OF CITY SUBPOENAS: 94
95
A. Service of city subpoenas may be made by any city employee or by any person who 96
meets the requirements of rule 4 of the Utah rules of civil procedure. 97
98
B. Service shall be in accord with rule 4 of the Utah rRules of cCivil pProcedure. 99
100
2.59.070: SUBPOENAS BY OTHER PARTIES:RESERVED 101
102
Any person who is subject to an administrative hearing before the city may, upon the payment of 103
the costs of the recorder for issuing subpoenas, have the city recorder's office issue subpoenas to 104
compel the attendance of persons or the production of nonprivileged and/or nonconfidential 105
documents at the hearing. The person shall make his/her own arrangements for service of the 106
subpoena. 107
108
2.59.080: PAYMENT OF SUBPOENA COSTS: 109
110
A. Cost Oof Subpoenas Issued Oon Behalf Oof Tthe City: All costs of service and witness 111
fees for subpoenas issued on behalf of the city shall be paid by the department (including the 112
mayor's office or the city council) on whose behalf the subpoena was issued, unless or until a 113
fund is created to pay for these costs. These costs shall include witness fees and mileage. 114
115
B. Subpoenas Issued Oon Behalf Oof Other Parties: All costs of service and witness fees for 116
subpoenas issued on behalf of any person other than the city shall be paid by the person 117
requesting issuance of the subpoena. 118
119
C. City Documents: Any party requesting city production of city documents shall pay all the 120
costs of producing the documents, including, but not limited to, the search costs, employee salary 121
4
costs and cost of reproduction of the documents. Each department required to furnish the 122
documents shall collect its own costs. 123
124
D. Witness Fees: Witness fees shall be the same as authorized in Utah Code Ssection 78B-1-125
11921-5-4, Utah Code Annotated, as amended from time to time or its successor statutes. 126
127
2.59.090: ENFORCEMENT OF SUBPOENAS: 128
129
A. Any party who willfully fails to comply with the subpoena, or who, having appeared, 130
refuses to answer any question pertinent to the matter under inquiry, except in accord with 131
privileges granted by law, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished in accord with the 132
punishments set by the state for class B misdemeanors. 133
134
B. In addition to criminal penalties, the subpoenaing party may also have the right of access 135
to the court for judicial enforcement of administrative subpoenas. 136
137
SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.75. That Chapter 138
2.75 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows: 139
CHAPTER 2.75 140
ENFORCEMENT OF CIVIL VIOLATIONS 141
2.75.010: Definitions: 142
2.75.020: Hearing Officer: 143
2.75.030: Civil Violations: 144
2.75.040: Attorney Fees: 145
146
2.75.010: DEFINITIONS: 147
Whenever the following terms are used in this chapter, they shall have the meanings set forth 148
herein: 149
150
ASSESSMENTS: Means and includes, but is not limited to, late charges, administrative fees, 151
attorney fees, court costs, and traffic school fees. 152
153
CIVIL CITATION (Also Known As CIVIL NOTICE OF VIOLATION OR CIVIL NOTICE): A 154
notice that a civil violation of this code has occurred, issued by an officer or other person 155
authorized to issue such notice consistent with Utah Code Annotated section 10-3-703 or other 156
applicable laws or state statutes or their successors. 157
5
158
CIVIL PENALTY: The fine, forfeitures, assessments or combination thereof imposed by the Salt 159
Lake City justice court. 160
161
CIVIL VIOLATION: A noncriminal violation of Salt Lake City ordinances designated as civil 162
violations. 163
164
HEARING OFFICER: An individual designated as a hearing officer, violation coordinator or 165
referee, or such other person who has authority to make decisions regarding civil or criminal 166
citations that have been issued by an enforcement officer, before the matter is referred to a 167
justice court judge. ( 168
2.75.020: HEARING OFFICER: 169
A. Duties: Consistent with the policies and procedures promulgated by the justice court, the 170
hearing officer may adjust and set, as authorized, sums due as civil penalties, surcharges, and 171
assessments owed; reduce civil penalties owed; dismiss citations upon payment of fees; enter 172
into agreements for the timely or periodic payment of penalties, surcharges and assessments; 173
and perform such other duties as deemed necessary or desirable by the justice court to carry 174
out the purposes of this chapter in accordance with justice and equity. 175
B. Accountability: The hearing officer shall serve as staff for the justice court but shall be 176
supervised as an employee, under the direction of the city justice court director or his/her 177
designee. 178
2.75.030: CIVIL VIOLATIONS: 179
180
A. When an enforcement officer determines that a civil violation of this code has occurred, the 181
officer shall issue a civil citation, the matter shall be handled by the justice court, and the 182
penalty for such civil violation shall be as provided in section 1.12.050 of this code, or its 183
successor. 184
B. Any person having received a civil citation shall, within twenty (20) days, either pay the 185
civil penalty as contained in the default penalty schedule or file a written request for a 186
hearing before the justice court. 187
C. Any person receiving a civil citation who requests a hearing shall discuss the matter with a 188
hearing officer for informal resolution prior to the hearing before the justice court. 189
D. If the matter is resolved by the hearing officer, the hearing request shall be dismissed. 190
E. If the civil penalties payable to the city remain unsatisfied and no written request for a 191
hearing has been filed after twenty (20) days from the issuance of the civil citation, the city 192
6
may use such lawful means as are available to collect such penalties, including late charges, 193
administrative and court costs and attorney fees. Any additional penalties are stayed upon 194
filing the request for hearing, until judgment is rendered in the matter. 195
2.75.040: ATTORNEY FEES: 196
A. If an attorney for the city assists the collections division of the city's finance department in 197
an enforcement or collection action involving a citation for a civil violation of this code, then 198
an attorney fee in the amount set forth in the Salt Lake city consolidated fee schedule shall be 199
assessed against the individual or entity that received the citation. This attorney fee shall be 200
assessed in addition to any other fees that may lawfully be assessed in such circumstances. 201
B. The attorney fee set forth in subsection A of this section shall not be imposed where the 202
imposition of the attorney fee: 203
1. Conflicts with federal, state or local law; or 204
2. Conflicts with a binding contract between the city and the entity or individual required 205
to make payments to the city. 206
207
Article I 208
GENERAL PROVISIONS 209
210
2.75.010: PURPOSE AND INTENT: 211
2.75.020: SCOPE: 212
2.75.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED: 213
2.75.040: CRIMINAL PROSECUTION RIGHT: 214
2.75.050: DEFINITIONS: 215
216
2.75.010: PURPOSE AND INTENT: 217
218
For specified administrative citations, as more particularly defined and designated in the Salt 219
Lake City Code, which are issued by the city, it is the purpose and intent of the city to afford 220
the recipient of such citation due process of law. Due process shall require proper notice of the 221
nature of the violation and the opportunity to be heard. 222
223
224
2.75.020: SCOPE: 225
226
The provisions of this chapter may be applied to all violations of the Salt Lake City Code that are 227
enforced through the issuance of an administrative citation and occur within Salt Lake City limits 228
7
and such territory outside Salt Lake City limits over which the city has jurisdiction or control by 229
virtue of any law or constitutional provision. However, if a more specific enforcement procedure 230
for a particular class of violations is expressly set forth in the Salt Lake City Code, then that 231
specifically-enumerated enforcement procedure shall apply. 232
233
234
2.75.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED: 235
236
The provisions of this chapter are not intended to invalidate any other provision of the Salt Lake 237
City Code and shall be read in harmony therewith. 238
239
240
2.75.040: CRIMINAL PROSECUTION RIGHT: 241
242
The provisions of this chapter shall not be construed to limit the city’s right to prosecute a 243
violation of the Salt Lake City Code as a criminal offense. 244
245
246
2.75.050: DEFINITIONS: 247
248
In the construction of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be as defined as set 249
forth in this section: 250
251
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER: A person appointed by the mayor to conduct 252
administrative enforcement hearings. 253
254
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: A citation notifying a person of an administrative violation. 255
The term “administrative citation” shall be deemed to include any reference in this code to a 256
“civil notice”, a “notice of violation”, an itemized statement of abatement costs, a notice of 257
abatement, or other notice of any adverse municipal decision for which the right to an 258
administrative enforcement hearing is specifically provided by ordinance. 259
260
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: All costs incurred by the city in connection with an administrative 261
violation, including but not limited to costs incurred in preparing for and attending an 262
administrative enforcement hearing. 263
264
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: A hearing held by an administrative 265
appeals officer pursuant to the procedures established by this chapter. 266
267
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: An order issued by an administrative appeals 268
officer pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, including but not limited to an order to pay civil 269
penalties and administrative costs. 270
271
ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLATION: Any violation of the Salt Lake City Code that the city has 272
elected not to prosecute as a criminal citation. The term “administrative violation” shall be 273
8
deemed to include any reference in this code to a “civil violation” where such civil violation is 274
subject to the processes and procedures set forth in this chapter. 275
276
CITY: The city of Salt Lake City, Utah. 277
278
CITY COUNCIL: The legislative body of Salt Lake City, Utah. 279
280
CIVIL PENALTY: A penalty imposed on a responsible person in conjunction with the issuance 281
of an administrative citation for a violation of the Salt Lake City Code. 282
283
HEARING OFFICER: A person authorized to facilitate the informal resolution of administrative 284
violations through an initial determination conducted prior to an administrative enforcement 285
hearing. 286
287
INITIAL DETERMINATION: An informal hearing conducted by a hearing officer where the 288
hearing officer reviews the evidence provided by the responsible person to whom the 289
administrative citation corresponds and makes a determination as to whether such evidence 290
justifies upholding or dismissing the administrative citation. 291
292
ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS: A written notice that informs a responsible person of 293
abatement actions taken by the city and provides an itemized statement of costs for those actions. 294
295
MAYOR: The mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. 296
297
NOTICE OF ABATEMENT: A written notice that informs a responsible person of abatement 298
actions taken by the city and provides an itemized statement of costs for those actions. 299
300
PERSON: Any natural person, firm, joint venture, joint stock company, partnership, association, 301
club, company, corporation, business trust, organization, or the manager, lessee, agent, officer, or 302
employee of the same, or any other entity or individual recognized by law as having rights or 303
duties. 304
305
RESPONSIBLE PERSON: A responsible person includes: 306
307
A. A person who causes or materially contributes to the causation of an administrative 308
violation or is otherwise responsible for an administrative violation as set forth in the 309
Salt Lake City Code; or 310
B. A person whose agent, employee, or independent contractor causes or materially 311
contributes to the causation of an administrative violation; or 312
C. The owner or occupant of real property within the city’s jurisdiction at which a 313
violation of the Salt Lake City Code occurs or exists. 314
315
316
Article II 317
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY 318
319
9
2.75.060: ADOPTION OF POLICY AND PROCEDURES: 320
2.75.070: DESIGNATION OF HEARING OFFICERS: 321
2.75.080; POWERS OF HEARING OFFICERS: 322
2.75.090: APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICERS: 323
2.75.100: POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICERS: 324
2.75.110: FALSE INFORMATION OR REFUSAL PROHIBITED: 325
2.75.120: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, AIDING, AND ABETTING: 326
327
328
2.75.060: ADOPTION OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES: 329
330
The chief administrative officer, or his/her designee, shall establish policies and procedures 331
addressing the enforcement of civil violations if such policies and procedures are consistent with 332
the provisions of this chapter. 333
334
335
2.75.070: DESIGNATION OF HEARING OFFICERS/ELECTIVE USE: 336
337
A. The department responsible for issuing the administrative citation may elect to refer 338
appeals of the same to the hearing officer process set forth in Sections 2.75.130, 2.75.160 and 339
2.75.170. In the event such election is not made, such department shall provide a similar 340
informal process to evaluate any evidence provided by the recipient of an administrative citation 341
that a violation did not occur or that there is good cause to rescind or otherwise provide relief 342
from the administrative citation. The administrative enforcement hearings process set forth in 343
Sections 2.75.90, 2.75.100, and Article III below shall be available to appeal such departmental 344
initial determination. 345
346
B. The department of finance shall designate hearing officers through any process consistent 347
with the city’s human resources policies and procedures. A hearing officer may be a city 348
employee. 349
350
351
2.75.080: POWERS OF HEARING OFFICERS: 352
353
A. A hearing officer shall conduct informal initial determinations regarding violations of the 354
Salt Lake City Code as provided in this chapter. 355
356
B. The hearing officer shall have the authority to: 357
358
1. Determine whether a violation has occurred; and 359
2. Subject to Section 2.75.170.B, dismiss an administrative citation; or 360
3. Subject to Section 2.75.170.B, uphold the administrative citation and reduce the civil 361
penalty associated with the administrative citation; or 362
4. Uphold the administrative citation without reducing the civil penalty associated with 363
the administrative citation. 364
365
10
366
2.75.090: APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICERS: 367
368
A. The mayor, with the advice and consent of the city council, shall appoint one or more 369
administrative appeals officers to conduct administrative enforcement hearings. 370
371
B. An administrative appeals officer: 372
1. Shall not participate in any appeal in which the officer has a conflict of interest 373
prohibited by Chapter 2.44; and 374
2. Shall be either law trained or have significant experience with the requirements and 375
operations of administrative hearing processes. 376
377
C. An administrative appeals officer shall serve for renewable terms of three years and, 378
during any three-year term, shall be subject to removal by the mayor only for cause. 379
380
381
2.75.100: POWERS & JURISDICTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICERS: 382
383
A. Except where a more specific enforcement appeal process is provided for in the Salt 384
Lake City Code, and, where a responsible person or the city has properly requested an 385
administrative enforcement hearing, an administrative appeals officer shall hear appeals 386
challenging any administrative citation. 387
388
B. An administrative appeals officer shall have authority to hold an administrative 389
enforcement hearing for violations of the Salt Lake City Code and such other matters as 390
specifically designated by ordinance. 391
392
C. Standard of Review: The standard of review for an appeal shall be de novo. The 393
administrative appeals officer shall review the matter anew, based upon applicable 394
procedures and standards for approval, and shall give no deference to the decision 395
resulting in the administrative citation. The administrative appeals officer shall uphold 396
the administrative citation unless it is not supported by substantial evidence or it 397
violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect when the administrative citation was 398
issued. 399
400
D. Burden of Proof: The appellant has the burden of proving that the administrative 401
citation is incorrect, or in the event the city is the appellant, that the hearing officer 402
erred. 403
404
E. An administrative appeals officer may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or may 405
modify the administrative citation. 406
407
F. After issuing a decision on the appeal, an administrative appeals officer has continuing 408
jurisdiction over the subject matter of an administrative enforcement hearing for the 409
purposes of: issuing further administrative orders to obtain compliance with the 410
decision, authorizing the city to enter upon private property to abate a violation, 411
11
modifying an administrative order, staying an administrative order, assessing costs of 412
abatement, assessing a civil penalty, or, where extraordinary circumstances exist, 413
granting a new hearing. 414
415
G. An administrative appeals officer shall not make any order contrary to any law or that 416
would require or allow a person to violate state law or city ordinance. 417
418
H. An administrative appeals officer may issue administrative subpoenas pursuant to 419
Chapter 2.59 in accordance with the policies and procedures adopted pursuant to 420
Section 2.75.060. 421
422
423
2.75.110: FALSE INFORMATION OR REFUSAL PROHIBITED: 424
425
It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully make a false statement or refuse to give the 426
person’s name or address with intent to deceive or interfere with the performance of the official 427
duties of the person issuing the administrative citation, the hearing officer, or the administrative 428
appeals officer under the provisions of this chapter. 429
430
431
2.75.120: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, AIDING, AND ABETTING: 432
433
Whenever any act or omission is made unlawful in this chapter, it shall include causing, 434
permitting, aiding, or abetting such act or omission. 435
436
437
Article III 438
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES 439
440
2.75.130: ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION APPEAL PROCEDURE OVERVIEW: 441
2.75.140: ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: 442
2.75.150: CIVIL PENALTIES ASSESSED: 443
2.75.160: REQUEST FOR INITIAL DETERMINATION: 444
2.75.170: INITIAL DETERMINATION PROCEDURES: 445
2.75.180: NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: 446
2.75.190: ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING PROCEDURES: 447
2.75.200: ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: 448
2.75.210: APPEAL TO DISTRICT COURT: 449
2.75.220: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS: 450
451
452
2.75.130: ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION APPEAL PROCEDURE OVERVIEW: 453
454
Administrative citations and timely appeals thereof shall be processed using the following 455
procedural framework: 456
457
12
A. When there is a determination that a violation of the Salt Lake City Code has occurred, 458
any authorized city personnel may issue an administrative citation for such violation to 459
the responsible person; 460
461
B. Any person receiving an administrative citation shall, within ten (10) calendar days, or 462
such longer period if stated on the administrative citation, either (1) comply with the 463
terms of the administrative citation, including payment of any specified civil penalty then 464
due, or (2) file a written request for an initial determination on a form provided by the 465
department of finance. The written request for an initial determination shall include a 466
statement describing the grounds that support the person’s challenge to the administrative 467
citation and shall be accompanied by any evidence the person desires to submit to a 468
hearing officer. After reviewing such written request and the submitted evidence, a 469
hearing officer shall render a written determination regarding the challenged 470
administrative citation. The written determination shall promptly be sent to all parties to 471
the initial determination. 472
473
C. If the recipient of the administrative citation does not agree with the determination of the 474
hearing officer, then the recipient of the administrative citation shall file a written request 475
for an administrative enforcement hearing and pay the administrative enforcement 476
hearing fee as set forth in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule within ten (10) 477
days of the hearing officer’s written decision. After such a request for hearing is received, 478
an administrative enforcement hearing will be held and an administrative appeals officer 479
will issue an administrative enforcement order regarding the administrative citation. 480
481
D. Within thirty (30) days of the date the administrative enforcement order is issued, both 482
the city and the recipient of the administrative citation shall have the right to appeal the 483
administrative enforcement order by filing a petition for review with the Third District 484
Court of Utah. 485
486
487
2.75.140: ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: 488
489
A. An administrative citation may be issued to any responsible person. 490
491
B. The administrative citation shall include the following information: 492
1. Name of responsible person (if the name of the responsible person cannot 493
reasonably be ascertained, then a description of the real or personal property that 494
is the subject of the violation shall suffice); 495
2. Location of violation; 496
3. Date when the violation is observed; 497
4. A code citation and a description of each violation; 498
5. The amount of the civil penalty that corresponds to each violation; 499
6. Procedures for paying civil penalties; 500
7. Any instructions or other guidance specific to the facts of the violation at issue 501
and any corrective action available to the responsible person other than payment 502
of the civil penalty, if applicable; and 503
13
8. Procedures to request an initial determination and a description of the 504
consequences for failure to request or appear at such initial determination. 505
506
C. Notice of an administrative citation shall be issued to a responsible person in the 507
following manner: 508
509
1. Personally delivering the administrative citation to the responsible person; or 510
2. Sending the citation by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the responsible 511
person; or 512
3. Posting a copy of the administrative citation on the real or personal property 513
that gave rise to the administrative citation. 514
515
D. Service of an administrative citation is effective upon utilizing any method of issuance 516
set forth in Section 2.75.140.C. However, the deadline set forth in Section 2.75.160.A 517
shall be extended by 7 days if a citation is served pursuant to Section 2.75.140.C.2. 518
519
520
2.75.150: CIVIL PENALTIES ASSESSED: 521
522
A. Any person receiving an administrative citation shall comply with the terms of the 523
administrative citation, including payment of any specified civil penalty then due, unless 524
an initial determination is requested. 525
526
B. If the Salt Lake City Code states that the civil penalty for a particular administrative 527
violation will be reduced if payment is received within a specified time period, then the 528
city’s receipt of either payment or a request for an initial determination prior to the 529
expiration of that specified time period will permit the recipient of the administrative 530
citation to receive that penalty reduction. However, after all requested determinations and 531
hearings have been concluded, a person may forfeit such penalty reduction by failing to 532
timely pay any civil penalty ordered by the hearing officer or administrative appeals 533
officer, as applicable. 534
535
C. The civil penalty for each violation listed on an administrative citation shall be as set 536
forth in the Salt Lake City Code. 537
538
D. If the civil penalties payable to the city remain unsatisfied, and no written request for an 539
initial determination has been timely filed, the city may use such lawful means as are 540
available to collect such civil penalties. 541
542
543
2.75.160: REQUEST FOR INITIAL DETERMINATION: 544
545
A. Any person receiving an administrative citation shall, within ten (10) calendar days, or 546
such longer period if stated on the administrative citation, either (1) comply with the 547
terms of the administrative citation, including payment of any specified civil penalty then 548
14
due, or (2) file a written request for an initial determination on a form provided by the 549
department of finance. 550
551
B. Any recipient of an administrative citation may request a copy of the documents 552
maintained by the city supporting the administrative citation. 553
554
C. A request for an initial determination shall be submitted to the department of finance, 555
either electronically or by submitting a hard copy document, on a form provided by the 556
department of finance. The request shall include: 557
558
1. The administrative citation number or case file number, as applicable; 559
2. The name, physical address, telephone number, and email address of the person 560
requesting the initial determination; 561
3. A statement describing the grounds that support the person’s challenge to the 562
administrative citation, which shall set forth every theory of relief that will be presented to the 563
hearing officer; and 564
4. Any evidence the person desires to submit for the initial determination. 565
566
D. Failure by a person to timely request an initial determination shall constitute a waiver of 567
the right to any initial determination and administrative enforcement hearing and a waiver 568
of the right to challenge the administrative citation. If an initial determination is not 569
timely requested and administrative citation is not complied with then the city may elect 570
to enforce the administrative citation by any lawful means. 571
572
573
2.75.170: INITIAL DETERMINATION PROCEDURES: 574
575
A. A request for an initial determination filed in compliance with the requirements of 576
Section 2.75.160 shall be processed as follows: 577
578
1. The city shall bear the burden of proof to establish the existence of a violation of the 579
Salt Lake City Code. Such proof shall be established by a preponderance of the evidence. 580
2. The hearing officer shall review the written request for an initial determination, 581
including the arguments and evidence set forth therein; 582
3. The hearing officer shall also review any evidence related to the administrative citation 583
provided by the issuer thereof; and 584
4. The hearing officer shall issue a written determination regarding the administrative 585
citation within five (5) business days from the date the written request for an initial 586
determination is received. The hearing officer’s written decision may: 587
588
a. Dismiss the administrative citation; 589
b. Uphold the administrative citation and reduce the associated civil 590
penalty; or 591
c. Uphold the administrative citation without reducing the associated 592
civil penalty. 593
594
15
B. A hearing officer shall only dismiss an administrative citation or reduce a civil penalty 595
associated therewith as follows: 596
597
1. If the person receiving the administrative citation is not the responsible party; 598
2. If the administrative citation does not comply with Section 2.75.140. 599
3. The city has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation 600
identified in the administrative citation occurred. 601
4. Imminent injury to persons or property would result from compliance with the 602
administrative citation. 603
5. All corrective actions outlined in the notice of violation were completed on or before 604
the compliance date. 605
6. Such mitigating circumstances expressly identified in the Salt Lake City Code 606
corresponding to the specific violation at issue. 607
7. When conducting an initial determination involving an alleged violation for 608
unauthorized use of streets, a hearing officer may only dismiss an administrative citation 609
or reduce the civil penalties corresponding to such a citation pursuant to the criteria set 610
forth in Section 12.56.570, or its successor. 611
8. Civil penalties shall not be reduced where a violation is sustained by the hearing 612
officer but the responsible person has not yet complied with the corrective action, if any, 613
identified in the administrative citation. 614
9. Or as otherwise limited by law. 615
616
C. A person adversely affected by a hearing officer’s written determination, or written 617
determination of the applicable department if the department has not elected to use an 618
hearing officer pursuant to Section 2.75.070, may appeal that written determination by 619
filing a completed request for an administrative enforcement hearing within ten (10) days 620
of the date on which the written determination was issued. A request for an 621
administrative enforcement hearing shall be made in writing on a form provided by the 622
department of finance and may be filed, either electronically or by submitting a hard copy 623
document, with the department of finance. The request shall include: 624
625
1. The administrative citation number or case file number, as applicable; 626
2. The name, address, telephone number, and email address of the person requesting the 627
hearing; 628
3. A statement describing the grounds that support the person’s challenge to the 629
administrative citation, which shall set forth every theory of relief that will be presented 630
to the administrative appeals officer; 631
4. Any evidence the person desires to submit for the administrative appeals officer’s 632
consideration; and 633
5. An administrative enforcement hearing fee as set forth in the Salt Lake City 634
consolidated fee schedule. However, in no case shall the administrative enforcement 635
hearing fee assessed be greater than the base civil penalty that corresponds to the 636
cumulative administrative violation(s) at issue. In the event that the city is the appellant, 637
no hearing fee shall be payable from either party. The hearing fee shall be due at the time 638
of filing the hearing request. An administrative enforcement hearing request shall not be 639
considered complete until the hearing fee is paid. 640
16
641
a. If the citation recipient prevails at the administrative enforcement 642
hearing, the administrative enforcement hearing fee shall be refunded to 643
the citation recipient. Otherwise, no refund of the hearing fee shall be 644
granted. A modification of the administrative citation or mere reduction in 645
the civil penalty shall not render the citation recipient the prevailing party. 646
647
D. Failure by a person to timely request an administrative enforcement hearing shall 648
constitute a waiver of the right to make any further challenge regarding the administrative 649
citation or result of the initial determination. If an administrative enforcement hearing is 650
not timely requested and the hearing officer’s written determination, or the written 651
determination of the applicable department if the department has not elected to use a 652
hearing officer pursuant to Section 2.75.070, has not been complied with, then the city 653
may elect to enforce the administrative citation, or written determination to the extent it 654
modified the administrative citation, by any lawful means. 655
656
657
2.75.180: NOTICE & ATTENDANCE AT ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT 658
HEARING: 659
660
A. Upon receipt of a request for an administrative enforcement hearing the administrative 661
appeals officer shall schedule and hold a hearing in accordance with the standards and 662
procedures adopted in Section 2.75.060. All administrative enforcement hearings shall be open 663
to the public and shall be recorded. 664
665
B. Notification of the date, time and place of the hearing shall be given a minimum of 666
twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the hearing. 667
668
C. Time Limitation: All administrative enforcement hearings shall be held within one 669
hundred eighty (180) days of the written determination by the hearing officer, or department if 670
applicable. Appeals not heard within this time frame will be considered moot and the associated 671
administrative citation withdrawn by the city. 672
673
D. If a person, without good cause, fails to appear at an administrative enforcement hearing 674
then the administrative appeals officer may (1) render a decision based solely upon the 675
arguments and evidence submitted prior to the hearing by the non-appearing party and any 676
arguments and evidence submitted by the appearing party at the hearing, or (2) grant a decision 677
by default to the appearing party. The administrative appeals officer shall have discretion to 678
determine whether good cause for an absence exists. 679
680
681
2.75.190: ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING PROCEDURES: 682
683
A. Administrative enforcement hearings are intended to be informal in nature. Formal rules 684
of evidence and discovery shall not apply. No later than five (5) business days prior to the 685
hearing the party that did not request the hearing shall provide the other an electronic 686
17
copy of any documents, photographs or other tangible evidence it intends to present at the 687
hearing and both parties shall provide a list of the witnesses that will testify at the 688
hearing. If an administrative citation arises from a complaint by a person who is not a city 689
employee, the complainant’s information shall not be disclosed or released other than the 690
inclusion of a complainant’s name in a witness list if the complainant will be a witness at 691
the hearing. 692
693
B. Each party shall have the right to be represented by an attorney at their sole cost and 694
expense. If an attorney will be representing a responsible person at a hearing, notice of 695
the attorney’s name, telephone number, and email address shall be provided at least two 696
(2) business days prior to the hearing. If such notice is not given, the hearing may be 697
continued at the city’s request, and all costs of the continuance may be assessed to the 698
responsible person. 699
700
C. No new hearing shall be granted unless the administrative appeals officer determines that 701
extraordinary circumstances exist that justify a new hearing. 702
703
D. Hearings shall be conducted in a manner as to afford the parties due process and in 704
accordance with the policies and procedures adopted pursuant to Section 2.75.060. 705
706
E. The burden to prove any defense shall be upon the party raising such defense. 707
708
F. After considering all applicable evidence, testimony, and defenses presented, the 709
administrative appeals officer shall issue a written administrative enforcement order in 710
accordance with the requirements and criteria set forth in Section 2.75.200. 711
712
713
2.75.200: ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: 714
715
A. After an administrative enforcement hearing, or the close of evidence, whichever occurs 716
later, the administrative appeals officer shall, within ten (10) business days, issue a written 717
administrative enforcement order that includes findings of fact and conclusions of law that 718
support the administrative appeals officer’s decision and, if applicable, the action required of the 719
responsible party to satisfy the order. If a decision is rendered at the administrative enforcement 720
hearing the administrative appeals officer may assign the party who prevailed, if represented by 721
counsel, the task of preparing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. 722
723
B. Depending on the nature of the administrative violation at issue, an administrative 724
appeals officer may issue an administrative enforcement order that orders any of the 725
following: 726
727
1. Dismisses an administrative citation, or dismisses one or more of the administrative 728
violations associated with the administrative citation. 729
2. Requires a responsible person to cease and desist from committing or otherwise abate 730
the conditions causing the administrative violations identified in the administrative 731
citation; 732
18
3. Requires a responsible person to take any necessary corrective action to avoid 733
committing or to cease committing the administrative violations and establish 734
deadlines for the same; 735
3. Imposes civil penalties as set forth in this code; 736
4. Permits the city to enter property identified in the administrative citation and abate all 737
violations; 738
739
a. Whenever an order of abatement is entered the administrative appeals 740
officer shall also order the responsible person to pay to the city the actual 741
costs of the abatement and any administrative costs the city incurs in 742
performing the abatement. 743
744
5. Reduces the civil penalties associated with one or more administrative violations, 745
except that no such reduction shall be ordered when the violation is sustained but the 746
responsible person has not yet complied with the corrective action affirmed or 747
ordered by the administrative appeals officer; 748
6. Establishes specific deadlines for the payment of civil penalties and administrative 749
costs; 750
7. Denies, revokes, or suspends a city license, permit or other city approval; 751
8. Provides for subsequent review hearings as may be necessary to ensure compliance 752
with an administrative enforcement order; 753
9. Imposes any other applicable penalties or fees in accordance with the provisions set 754
forth in this code. 755
756
C. In considering a request to modify civil penalties imposed in connection with an 757
administrative citation an administrative appeals officer may consider any or all of the 758
following factors: 759
1. Duration, frequency, and reoccurrence of a violation; 760
2. Seriousness of a violation; 761
3. History of a violation; 762
4. Good faith effort by a responsible person to comply with the administrative citation or, 763
if applicable, the administrative enforcement order; 764
5. Prior record of city code violations; and 765
6. Any other factor appropriate to a just result. 766
767
D. Promptly after an administrative enforcement order is issued it shall be sent either by 768
mail to the address or to the email address identified on the administrative enforcement 769
hearing request. An administrative enforcement order shall be deemed final on the date it 770
is sent to such address. The deadline for appeal pursuant to Section 2.75.210.B shall be 771
extended by 7 days for order sent by mail. 772
773
E. If a responsible person fails to comply with the terms set forth in an administrative 774
enforcement order, the city may use all appropriate legal means to obtain compliance 775
thereof and recover civil penalties and administrative costs, including attorney’s fees. 776
777
778
19
2.75.210: APPEAL TO DISTRICT COURT: 779
780
A. The city or any responsible person adversely affected by a final administrative 781
enforcement order may file a petition for review with the Third District Court of Utah. The scope 782
of review shall be limited to the record before the administrative appeals officer. The court shall 783
presume the final administrative enforcement order is correct and shall not reweigh the evidence. 784
The administrative enforcement order may be overturned if it is illegal or arbitrary and 785
capricious. The administrative enforcement order shall be upheld if it is supported by substantial 786
evidence. 787
788
B. A petition for review shall be barred unless it is filed within thirty (30) days after the 789
administrative enforcement order is final. 790
791
C. The recording of the administrative enforcement hearing, any available minutes, evidence 792
submitted by the parties, orders, and if available, a true and correct transcript of the proceeding, 793
shall be provided by the city to the district court after the filing of a petition for review. 794
795
D. The filing of a petition for review in district court does not stay the final decision of the 796
administrative appeals officer. 797
798
799
2.75.220: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS: 800
801
At any time the recipient of an administrative citation and the city may enter into a stipulated 802
settlement agreement, which shall be signed by both parties. An executed settlement agreement 803
shall be binding upon the parties thereto. Execution of such agreement shall constitute a waiver, 804
as to the merits of the administrative citation, of any right to an initial determination, an 805
administrative enforcement hearing, and an appeal to district court, to the extent not yet 806
conducted. 807
808
SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 2.84.100. That Section 809
2.84.100 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 810
811
2.84.100: JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY: 812
813
The justice court shall have jurisdiction over all matters as provided by law and state statute, 814
including, but not limited to, jurisdiction and authority provided under Utah Code Annotated 815
Title 78A Chapter 7sections 78-5-104, 78-5-105, and 78-5-106, or theirits successors. In 816
accordance with said jurisdiction, the justice court may hear civil violations of Salt Lake City 817
ordinances, including, but not limited to, those civil violations which have been designated as 818
civil penalty matters, having been converted by the city from criminal violations, unless city 819
ordinances provide for a different procedure for handling such violations. Civil penalty matters 820
20
shall be managed in accordance with simplified rules of procedure and evidence applicable to 821
small claims courts. 822
823
SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.100. That Section 824
5.02.100 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 825
5.02.100: INVESTIGATION; MAYOR’S POWERS AND DUTIES: 826
A. Investigation: The mayor or his/her designee may, pPrior to the issuance of any business 827
license required by this title, the city may investigate any applicant for such license to ensure 828
such applicant, proposed business, and proposed place of business comply with all applicable 829
laws, rules, and regulations. Such investigation may include entry into the proposed business 830
premises.if the mayor has reasonable cause to believe that the applicant: 831
832
1. Has filed an application which is incomplete, erroneous, or false in any respect; 833
2. Fails in any respect to qualify to do business in the city under any federal, state or city 834
law, rule or regulation; or 835
3. Has committed such act or acts as may be grounds for revocation or denial of a license 836
application under any federal, Utah state, or Salt Lake City law, rule or regulation; or 837
4. Investigation is provided by city ordinance. 838
839
B. Documents Productionand Witnesses: Unless the business license application is 840
withdrawn by the applicant, and no business operations are taking place without the required 841
licensetThe citymayor or his/her designee may compel the production of documents and 842
witnesses in order to conduct such investigation as provided by this section. 843
844
C. Application Denial: Upon a finding by the mayor or the designated hearing examiner that 845
the application is in fact incomplete, erroneous or false in any respect, or that the applicant is not 846
qualified to do business in the city under any federal, Utah state or city law, rule or regulation, or 847
that the applicant has committed an act or acts which would justify denial of the application, 848
such application may be denied by the mayor or the designated hearing examiner after hearing, 849
as provided in this chapter.Continuing Powers: In the event that a license is issued pursuant to 850
this title, the license holder and place of business shall be subject to ongoing inspections and 851
investigation to determine continued compliance with the terms and conditions of the license and 852
all applicable laws, rules and regulations. 853
854
SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.115. That Section 855
5.02.115 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 856
5.02.115: TIME LIMITATIONS: 857
A. License Issuance Limitations: Unless otherwise specified by a specific ordinance, the city 858
has thirty (30) days in which to complete its review and approve or deny a license. If a review 859
21
cannot be completed within thirty (30) days, a conditional license mayshall be issued to the 860
applicant subject to completion of the review, verifying the applicant meets all license 861
requirements. 862
863
B. Appeal Time Limit: The licensee may appeal the denial of a license by the license 864
supervisor by filing with the license supervisor a written notice of appeal. The notice must be 865
filed within ten (10) days of receipt of notice of denial of the license. 866
867
868
SECTION 6. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.230. That Section 869
5.02.230 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed in its entirety as follows: 870
5.02.230: RESERVEDLICENSE; HEARING PROCEDURES: 871
Hearings to consider the revocation, suspension, approval, or denial of licenses issued by Salt 872
Lake City Corporation shall be held by or at the direction of the mayor. Notwithstanding the 873
provisions of any other ordinance pertaining to hearings before the mayor for the suspension or 874
revocation of licenses, such hearings may be held either before the mayor, or before any 875
hearing examiner who has been appointed by the mayor, upon the advice and consent of the 876
city council, to conduct such hearings. 877
878
SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.250. That Section 879
5.02.250 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 880
881
5.02.250: LICENSE; DENIAL, SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION; CONDITIONS: 882
883
A. Conditions Oof Denial, Suspension Oor Revocation: The licensee shall be responsible for 884
the operation of the licensed premises in conformance with the ordinances of the city. Any 885
business license issued by the city may be suspended or revoked, and any application for any 886
business license or for the renewal of any business license may be denied, by the mayor or the 887
designated hearing examiner, for a period of time not to exceed three (3) years after a hearing 888
held before the mayor or at the mayor's direction, upon a finding by the mayor or the designated 889
hearing examiner of a violation of or conviction ofdue to any of the following arising out of or 890
otherwise related to the application for, or the operation of, the business at issuewith respect to 891
the licensee or licensee's operator or agent: 892
893
1. The applicant or place of business does not meet the qualifications for a license; 894
2. Nonpayment of required fees; 895
3. An incomplete application; 896
4. Noncompliance with any requirement or condition associated with a city approval 897
associated with the business (i.e. conditional use permit, development agreement, 898
variance); 899
22
15. A violation of or a conviction for violating any ordinance regulating or governing 900
the business for which said license was granted; or 901
26. A violation of or conviction for violating any other city ordinance or law of the 902
state which affects the health, welfare or safety of its residents, including, but not limited 903
to, a public nuisance, and which violation or conviction relates to the business so licensed 904
or to be licensed; or 905
37. A violation of or conviction for violating an ordinance which violation or 906
conviction resulted from the operation of the business so licensed; or 907
48. Any material misrepresentation or any fraud perpetrated on the licensing authority 908
through application for, or operation of, said business.; or 909
9. The applicant or licensee has refused authorized representatives of the city access 910
to the place of business for the purpose of an inspection or has interfered with such 911
representatives while in the performance of their duty in making such inspection. 912
913
914
B. Other Grounds Not Precluded: These violations shall not limit, but shall be in addition to, 915
other grounds for the denial, suspension or revocation of any license as provided for by 916
ordinance. 917
918
C. Theaters; Prior Violations: The foregoing provisions of this section notwithstanding, 919
nothing herein shall authorize a revocation or suspension of any license of any theater, motion 920
picture house or concert hall, based on a prior conviction or violation of exhibition or distribution 921
of obscene material. 922
923
924
SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.260. That Section 925
5.02.260 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 926
5.02.260: LICENSE; DENIAL, SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION; PROCEDURE: 927
928
A. Hearing Required; Notice: Any suspension, revocation or denial of the renewal of a 929
license may be appealed pursuant to Chapter 2.75. Suspension or revocation shall not take effect 930
until the time period for appealing the decision has expired or, if applicable, a decision is issued 931
as a result of a timely appeal.by the City shall not be imposed until a hearing is first held before 932
the Mayor or a hearing examiner appointed by the Mayor. Reasonable notice of the time and 933
place of the hearing, together with notice of the nature of the charges or complaint against the 934
licensee, premises or applicant sufficient to reasonably inform the licensee or applicant and 935
enable him/her to answer such charges and complaint, shall be served upon the licensee or 936
applicant personally or by mailing a copy to the licensee or applicant at his or her last known 937
address. 938
B. Hearing Procedures: All witnesses called at such hearings shall be sworn by a person 939
duly authorized to administer oaths, and a record of such hearing shall be made by a recording or 940
a court reporter. A licensee or applicant shall have the right to appear at the hearing in person or 941
by counsel, or both, present evidence, present argument on the licensee's or applicant's behalf, 942
cross examine witnesses, and in all proper ways defend the licensee's or applicant's position 943
23
944
SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.270. That Section 945
5.02.270 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 946
5.02.270: NEW LICENSE APPLICATION; WAITING PERIOD REQUIRED WHEN: 947
It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or any agent, manager or operator of any person, 948
corporation or firm who has had a license suspended, revoked or denied by the Mayor or the 949
Mayor's designated hearing examiner to reapply for or obtain a license, or operate a business, 950
which has been so suspended, revoked or denied during the time that said license has been 951
revoked, suspended or denied or for a period of one (1) year from the effective date of said 952
suspension, revocation, or denial if no period of debarment is specified by the order of 953
suspension, revocation, or denial. 954
955
SECTION 10. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Sections 5.02.280, 5.02.290, 956
and 5.02.310. That Sections 5.02.280, 5.02.290, and 5.02.310 of the Salt Lake City Code are 957
hereby repealed in their entirety. 958
5.02.280: HEARING EXAMINERS; APPOINTMENT AND POWERS: 959
960
The Mayor may appoint one (1) or more hearing examiners upon the advice and consent of the 961
City Council, and the Mayor or any hearing examiner shall have power and authority to call, 962
preside at and conduct hearings to consider the suspension, revocation, denial or approval of 963
licenses issued by Salt Lake City Corporation, including the power to examine witnesses and 964
receive evidence, compel the attendance of witnesses, and compel the production of documents. 965
966
5.02.290: HEARINGS HELD BEFORE A HEARING EXAMINER: 967
968
At the conclusion of any hearing held as provided in section 5.02.260 of this chapter, or its 969
successor section, the hearing examiner shall issue or adopt written findings of fact and 970
conclusions of law and an order which is based upon and supported by the evidence presented at 971
the hearing. Such findings, conclusions and order shall have full force and effect upon issuance, 972
and shall be binding upon all parties as of the date and time of such issuance. The City and the 973
licensee or applicant may appeal such findings, conclusions and order to a court of competent 974
jurisdiction within thirty (30) days of the date on which the hearing examiner issues such 975
findings, conclusions and order. 976
977
5.02.310: SUBPOENAS: 978
979
At the request of any party, subpoenas for attendance at any hearing or for production of books, 980
papers, documents or tangible things shall be issued as provided in title 2, chapter 2.59 of this 981
Code or its successor chapter. 982
24
983
SECTION 11. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.04.040. That 984
Section 5.04.040 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 985
5.04.040: BUSINESS LICENSING FEES – EXEMPTIONSLICENSE; NOT REQUIRED 986
WHEN: 987
A. Fee Exemptions: No base license fee shall be imposed under this chapter upon any 988
person: 989
1. Engaged in business for solely religious, charitable, eleemosynary, or other types of 990
strictly nonprofit purpose who is tax exempt in such activities under the laws of the 991
United States and the state of Utah; 992
2. Engaged in a business specifically exempted from municipal taxation and fees under the 993
laws of the United States and the state of Utah; 994
3. Engaged in a business operated under the supervision of the Utah State Fair Corporation 995
and located exclusively at the Utah State Fair Park during the period of the annual Utah 996
State Fair; or 997
4. Not maintaining a place of business within the city who has paid a like or similar license 998
tax or fee to some other taxing unit within the state, and which taxing unit exempts from 999
its license tax or fee, by reciprocal agreement, businesses domiciled in the city and doing 1000
business in such taxing unit. 1001
B. Disproportionate Fees: The exemptions set forth in subsections A1, A2, and A4 of 1002
this section shall not apply to any disproportionate fees which may be applicable under 1003
section 5.04.070 of this chapter to a person doing business in the city, nor to any other fees or 1004
charges which may be required under this code. 1005
C. Reciprocal Agreement: The mayor may, with approval of the city council, enter 1006
into reciprocal agreements with the proper officials of other taxing units, as may be deemed 1007
equitable and proper in effecting the exemption provided for in subsection A of this section. 1008
Nothing in this section shall preclude the city from reviewing and investigating a business 1009
license application under such a reciprocal agreement, and requiring payment of disproportionate 1010
fees or other fees or taxes imposed by any other provisions of the ordinances of the city, in the 1011
discretion of the city council. 1012
1013
SECTION 12. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.04.116. That 1014
Section 5.04.116 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1015
5.04.116: LICENSE; FEE COLLECTION; CIVIL ACTIONS AUTHORIZED: 1016
25
1017
A. Civil Actions: In all cases where a city ordinance requires that a license be 1018
obtained to carry on or to engage in any business, occupation or calling within the city, and the 1019
fee for such license is fixed by such ordinance, and the fee is not paid at the time or in the 1020
manner provided in said ordinance, a civil action may be brought in the name of Salt Lake City 1021
against the person failing to pay such license fee, in any court of this state having jurisdiction of 1022
such action, to recover the fee. In any case where several or diverse amounts of license fees 1023
remain due and unpaid by any such person, such several amounts of unpaid license fees may be 1024
joined as separate causes of action in the same complaint in such civil actions. 1025
B. Administrative Citation: Any unpaid license fees or penalties imposed pursuant to 1026
this title shall be issued in the form of an administrative citation and subject to Chapter 2.75. 1027
C. Other Enforcement: Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or in any 1028
manner interfere with the enforcement of any penalty provision contained in any ordinance of the 1029
city. 1030
1031
SECTION 13. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.08.230. That 1032
Section 5.08.230 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1033
5.08.230: APPEAL PROCEDURES: 1034
1035
A. The mayor shall appoint such hearing officers as he or she deems appropriate to consider 1036
matters relating to violations of this chapter. Civil penalties imposed pursuant to this chapter 1037
shall be subject to the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.75. 1038
1039
B. Any alarm user shall have ten (10) business days from the date of the city's written notice 1040
of a penalty assessment under this chapter to request in writing an appeal hearing before such 1041
hearing officer. The filing of an appeal with the alarm administrator shall stay the assessment of 1042
additional penalties for that violation until the hearing officer makes a final decision. The burden 1043
to prove any matter shall be upon the person raising such matter. It shall not be a defense to any 1044
penalty assessment that: 1) the false alarms were the result of faulty or malfunctioning 1045
equipment; 2) the false alarms were caused by electrical surges; or 3) the false alarms were 1046
caused by the fault of another person during noncriminal incidents. The hearing officer shall 1047
render a decision within ten (10) days after the appeal hearing is concluded. Following issuance 1048
of such decision, additional penalty assessments shall accrue until paid, as provided in this 1049
chapter. 1050
1051
C. If the hearing officer finds that no violation of this chapter occurred, or that a violation 1052
occurred but one or more of the defenses set forth in this section is applicable, Tthe hearing 1053
officer or administrative appealshearing officer, as applicable, may dismiss the penalty and 1054
release the alarm user from liability thereunder, or may reduce the penalty associated therewith 1055
as he or she shall determine if any of the following affirmative defenses are shown. Such 1056
defenses are: 1057
26
1058
1. The false alarm for which the penalty has been assessed did not originate at the 1059
premises of the alarm user who has been assessed the fee; 1060
2. The alarm for which the penalty has been assessed was, in fact, not false, but was 1061
rather the result of an actual or attempted burglary, robbery or other emergency; or 1062
3. The police dispatch office was notified by the permit holder or the alarm company 1063
that the alarm was false prior to the arrival of a peace officer to the subject premises in response 1064
to the false alarm.; or 1065
4. Such other mitigating circumstances as may be approved by the city law 1066
department. 1067
1068
D. If the hearing officer finds that a false alarm did occur and no applicable defense exists, 1069
the alarm administrator may, in the interest of justice and on behalf of the city, enter into an 1070
agreement for the timely or periodic payment of the applicable fees and penalties. 1071
1072
SECTION 14. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.09.080. That Section 1073
5.09.080 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1074
5.09.080: APPEALS: 1075
A. Except as set forth below, civil penalties and assessed fees imposed pursuant to 1076
this chapter shall be subject to the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.75. An owner may appeal the 1077
assessment of fees to the enforcement official. An appeal fee (see the Salt Lake City consolidated 1078
fee schedule) must accompany the appeal. Appeal fees will be returned to the owner if the appeal 1079
is upheld. The filing of an appeal with the enforcement official stays the assessment of the fee 1080
until the enforcement official makes a final decision. The owner shall file a written appeal to the 1081
enforcement official by setting forth the reasons for the appeal within fifteen (15) days after 1082
notice is mailed. 1083
B. An owner to whom a notice to disconnect or deactivate a fire alarm system was 1084
mailed, pursuant to subsection 5.09.070A of this chapter, shall be entitled to appeal the order to 1085
the enforcement official. An appeal fee (see the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule) must 1086
accompany the appeal. Appeal fees will be returned to the owner if the appeal is upheld. An 1087
appeal must be made in writing stating the reason why the order to disconnect or deactivate 1088
should be withdrawn. The appeal shall be made within fifteen (15) days after notice to 1089
disconnect is mailed to the owner. The enforcement official or his or her designee shall review 1090
the facts and circumstances and shall determine whether the owner has shown good cause why 1091
the order should be withdrawn. If the enforcement official affirms the order to disconnect or 1092
deactivate a fire alarm system, the owner shall have fifteen (15) days after the written decision is 1093
served upon the owner to comply with the order. The appeal of an order to disconnect or 1094
deactivate shall suspend the effective date of the order until the appeal has been acted upon by 1095
the enforcement official. 1096
1097
27
SECTION 15. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 5.14.060.D. That 1098
Subsection 5.14.060.D of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1099
1100
D. Whenever it is necessary to make an inspection to enforce any provisions of this chapter, 1101
or whenever the Ccity has reasonable cause to believe a Code violation exists in any building or 1102
upon any premises which makes such building or premises unsafe, dangerous or hazardous, the 1103
Ccity's duly authorized representative may, after making reasonable efforts toupon obtaining 1104
permission of the owner or other person having charge or control of the premises or dwelling 1105
unit, or upon obtaining a warrant, enter a residential property or premises to inspect it or to 1106
perform any other duties imposed by this chapter. 1107
1108
SECTION 16. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.14.120. That Section 1109
5.14.120 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1110
5.14.120: ENFORCEMENT: 1111
A. Enforcement of all business licensing standards, except a property’s compliance 1112
with the self-certification standards required by Section 5.14.060, shall be pursuant to Chapters 1113
5.02, 5.04, and 5.88. 1114
B. Self-Certification Standard Enforcement: In addition to any other remedies 1115
authorized by law or in this title, if the notified party fails to repair or secure the property in 1116
question, the Ccity may pursue any one (1) or more of the following additional remedies: 1117
1. Notice Of Deficiency: The building services divisionSupervisor of Housing 1118
Enforcement may record with the Salt Lake County Recorder's Office a notice of 1119
any conditions that violate the self-certification standards established by the 1120
Ccity. The notice shall be mailed to all notified parties. 1121
2. Criminal Action: Violations of the provisions of self- certification standards 1122
established by the Ccity may be punishable as a Class B misdemeanor upon 1123
conviction. 1124
3. Civil Action: Violations of self-certification standards established by the Ccity 1125
may also be enforced by injunction, mandamus, abatement, civil penalties or any 1126
other appropriate action in law or equity. 1127
CB. Civil penalties may be imposed according to the following procedures: 1128
1. Notice Of Violation: 1129
a. If the housing inspector finds that any provision of this chapter is being 1130
violated, the housing inspector shall provide a written notice to the property 1131
owner and to any other person determined to be responsible for such violation. 1132
28
The written notice shall indicate the nature of the violation and order the 1133
action necessary to correct it. Additional written notices may be provided at 1134
the housing inspector's discretion. 1135
b. The written notice shall state what action the housing inspector intends to take 1136
if the violation is not corrected. The written notice shall include information 1137
regarding the established warning period for the indicated violations and shall 1138
serve to start any warning periods provided in this chapter. 1139
c. Such written notice issued by the housing inspector shall be deemed sufficient 1140
and complete when served upon the person cited: 1141
(1) Personally by the inspector or his or her representative; or by mailing, 1142
postage prepaid, by certified mail or commercial courier addressed to 1143
the person cited at the last known address appearing on the records of 1144
the County Recorder; and 1145
(2) By posting notice on the property where said violation(s) occurs. 1146
d. In cases when delay in enforcement would seriously threaten the effective 1147
enforcement of this chapter, or pose a danger to the public health, safety or 1148
welfare, the housing inspector may seek enforcement without prior written 1149
notice by invoking any of the fines or remedies authorized in this chapter. 1150
e. If the violation remains uncured within five (5) days after the expiration of the 1151
warning period, a second notice of violation shall be delivered by mail, 1152
postage prepaid, addressed to the person cited at the last known address 1153
appearing on the records of the County Recorder. The second notice of 1154
violation shall identify the date on which the civil penalties shall begin to 1155
accrue. 1156
2. Amount of Penalty: Civil penalties shall accrue as follows: 1157
a. Violations of the self-certification standards established by the Ccity: $50.00 1158
per violation per day. If more than 10 violations exist, the daily penalties shall 1159
double. 1160
3. Daily Violations: Each day a violation continues after the citation deadline shall 1161
give rise to a separate civil penalty. 1162
4. Compliance: Accumulation of penalties for violations, but not the obligation for 1163
payment of penalties already accrued, shall stop upon correction of the violation. 1164
5. Recurring Violations: In the case where a violation, which had been corrected, 1165
reoccurs within six (6) months of the initial correction, the Ccity will begin 1166
enforcement of said recurring violation and penalties will begin accruing after a 1167
ten (10) day warning period. 1168
6. Appeals: 1169
29
a. Appeals Contesting the Existence of a Violation: 1170
(1) Appeals contesting the existence of the violation must done in 1171
accordance with Section 18.12.030. 1172
b. Appeals Contesting the Amount of the Penalties Imposed: any person 1173
receiving a notice of violation may appeal the civil fines imposed, but not the 1174
basis therefor (which must be done pursuant to Subsection 5.14.120.B.6.a), in 1175
accordance with Section 18.12.050. 1176
1177
SECTION 17. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.14.130. That Section 1178
5.14.130 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1179
5.14.130: REFUSAL TO PERMIT INSPECTIONS: 1180
If a rental dwelling business license holder, or an agent of such business license holder, refuses 1181
to permit the Ccity to conduct an inspection authorized under this chapter, then the Ccity has 1182
adequate grounds to: 1183
A. Revoke the rental dwelling business license that corresponds to the rental dwelling at 1184
issue; 1185
B. Disqualify the rental dwelling at issue from participation in the Ccity's Landlord/Tenant 1186
Initiative pursuant to chapter 5.15 of this title; 1187
C. After making reasonable efforts to obtaining a warrantpermission of the owner or other 1188
person having charge or control of the premises or dwelling unit, enter a rental dwelling at issue 1189
to inspect it or to otherwise perform duties imposed by this chapter; and/or 1190
D. Pursue any and all other remedies available to the Ccity. 1191
1192
SECTION 18. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.15.070. That Section 1193
5.15.070 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1194
5.15.070: DISQUALIFICATION: 1195
A. License Office Duties: If the License Office disqualifies an applicant from participating 1196
in the Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program or concludes that an owner hasreceives evidence that a 1197
rental dwelling owner or the owner's agents have, with respect to any rental dwelling, violated 1198
the provisions of this chapter or the owner's rental dwelling management agreement with the 1199
Ccity, the License Supervisor shall: 1200
30
1. Notify the rental dwelling owner of the violation and the basis for such action by 1201
either: 1202
a. Certified mail or commercial courier; 1203
b. Personal service; or 1204
c. Mailing a copy of the notice to the rental dwelling owner and posting a 1205
copy of the same notice at the rental dwelling; and 1206
2. Assess the rental dwelling owner for any disproportionate rental fees 1207
corresponding to such rental dwelling that were reduced under this chapter for the currently 1208
applicable license period. 1209
B. Appeal: A rental dwelling owner or agent who receives a notification and 1210
assessment as provided in subsection A of this section may appeal such action in accordance 1211
with the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.75to the Mayor, or the Mayor's designee, by filing a 1212
written request for a hearing with the City's Business Licensing Supervisor. The hearing shall be 1213
conducted pursuant to the procedures set forth in sections 5.02.260 and 5.02.290 of this title or 1214
their successor sections. 1215
C. No Partial Reduction if DisqualifiedFinding Of Noncompliance: If the owner of a 1216
rental dwelling is disqualified fromit is determined that a rental dwelling owner has not complied 1217
with the requirements of the Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program with respect to a particular 1218
rental dwelling during any portion of the licensing period for which a reduction was provided, 1219
the rental dwelling at issue, shall be disqualified from the program, and the disproportionate 1220
rental fee reduction that corresponds to such rental dwelling shall be disallowed for the entirety 1221
of the term of such rental dwelling business license. The rental dwelling owner shall pay the full 1222
disproportionate rental fee for such rental dwelling for that year. 1223
D. Readmission: After disqualification, the rental dwelling at issue may qualify for 1224
readmission to the Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program in the next licensing year only if the 1225
rental dwelling owner has corrected the problems leading to disqualification and has paid all 1226
amounts due in the prior year. 1227
1228
SECTION 19. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.16.100. That Section 1229
5.16.100 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1230
5.16.100: AUCTIONEER'S LICENSE; DENIAL OR REVOCATION CONDITIONS: 1231
An auctioneer's license may be revoked by the city license supervisor, or an application for 1232
issuance or renewal of such license may be refused by the city license supervisor., if he or she 1233
determines, after notice and hearing: 1234
A. Grounds for Revocation or Denial. 1235
31
1. That the applicant or license holder has committed any of the violations set forth 1236
in sSection 5.02.250 of this title, or its successor; or 1237
B2. That the application of the applicant or license holder contains any false, 1238
fraudulent or misleading material statements; or 1239
C3. That the applicant or license holder has made any false, fraudulent or misleading 1240
material statement in the course of conducting an auction sale of, or in offering for sale at 1241
auction, any real or personal property (goods, wares or merchandise) in the city; or 1242
D4. That the applicant or license holder has perpetrated a fraud upon any person, 1243
whether or not such fraud was perpetrated in the conduct of an auction in the city; or 1244
E5. That the applicant or license holder has violated any of the statutes of the state 1245
relating to auctions or auctioneers; or 1246
F6. That the applicant or license holder has conducted an auction sale in the city or 1247
offered for sale at an auction in the city, any real or personal property (goods, wares or 1248
merchandise) in an unlawful manner, or in such a manner as to constitute a breach of the 1249
peace or a menace to the health, safety or general welfare of the public. 1250
B. Such determination may be appealed in accordance with Chapter 2.75. 1251
1252
SECTION 20. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.16.110. That 1253
Section 5.16.110 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. 1254
5.16.110: RESERVEDDENIAL OR REVOCATION; REQUIRED NOTICE OF 1255
HEARING: 1256
Notice of the hearing provided for in the preceding section shall be given in writing to the 1257
applicant or license holder as provided in section 5.02.260 of this title, or its successor. The 1258
applicant or license holder shall have the right to be represented at such hearing by counsel. Such 1259
hearing shall be conducted in accordance with chapter 5.02 of this title, or its successor. 1260
1261
SECTION 21. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.40.120. That Section 1262
5.40.120 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1263
5.40.120: LICENSE; REVOCATION CONDITIONS: 1264
Any license granted or extended under this chapter may be revoked or suspended by the Mayor 1265
or the Mayor's designated hearing examiner after a hearing, with notice being given to the 1266
licensee aspursuant to the procedures provided in cChapter 5.02 of this title, or its successor for 1267
32
any of the following reasons:, resulting in an affirmative finding by the Mayor or the Mayor's 1268
designated hearing examiner in any of the following: 1269
A. Any misrepresentation made in obtaining a license; 1270
B. A conviction of, or any alleged but as yet unresolved charge that licensee has committed 1271
a crime involving moral turpitude; 1272
C. The violation of any provision of this chapter; 1273
D. A showing of any evidence which provides reasonable grounds for the Mayor to believe 1274
that the licensee has committed or aided in the preparation for or allowed his records, tools, 1275
equipment, facilities or supplies to be used for the commission of any crime. 1276
1277
SECTION 22. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.040. That Section 5.51.040 1278
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed. 1279
5.51.040: LICENSE ENFORCEMENT ACTION; APPLICABILITY:RESERVED 1280
License enforcement actions, as defined in section 5.51.010 of this chapter, are applicable to 1281
alcohol establishments only. Off premises beer retailers are subject, when applicable, to the 1282
enforcement requirements set forth in section 32A-10-103, Utah Code Annotated (2009) or the 1283
enforcement provisions set forth in section 5.02.260 of this title. 1284
1285
SECTION 23. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.050. That Section 5.51.050 1286
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed. 1287
5.51.050: LICENSE ENFORCEMENT ACTION; GROUNDS: RESERVED 1288
In addition to the grounds set forth in section 5.02.250 of this title, the following are grounds for 1289
a license enforcement action: 1290
A. Failure to comply with the terms of a conditional use permit issued by the city under title 1291
21A of this code. 1292
B. Three (3) or more serious or grave disciplinary sanctions, as defined by the Utah 1293
department of alcoholic beverage control, within a three (3) year period. 1294
C. Failure to maintain current and appropriate licensure under title 32A, Utah Code 1295
Annotated (2009), or successor provisions. 1296
1297
33
SECTION 24. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.060. That Section 5.51.060 1298
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed. 1299
5.51.060: ALCOHOL ENFORCEMENT HEARING BOARD; MEMBERSHIP; 1300
AUTHORITY: RESERVED 1301
A. The alcohol enforcement hearing board hears license enforcement actions and determines 1302
appropriate penalties, based on the guidelines provided in section 5.51.080 of this chapter. 1303
B. The board has three (3) members: one member shall be appointed from the hospitality 1304
industry, one member shall be appointed from the community, and one member shall be 1305
appointed from the city administration. 1306
C. Appointed board members serve for a two (2) year term and may be appointed for two (2) 1307
consecutive terms. The city administration appointee serves as chair. The business licensing 1308
supervisor will provide staff support to the board. 1309
1310
SECTION 25. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.070. That Section 5.51.070 1311
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed. 1312
5.51.070: LICENSE ENFORCEMENT ACTION; PROCEDURES: RESERVED 1313
A. How Initiated: Upon receipt of a complaint regarding an alcohol establishment, the 1314
business license supervisor will review the complaint with the city attorney to determine whether 1315
sufficient grounds and evidence exist to initiate a license enforcement action. The business 1316
license supervisor or city attorney may request city staff to investigate further or obtain 1317
additional evidence before making a determination. 1318
B. Notice Upon Determination To Initiate A License Enforcement Action: If a 1319
determination is made that sufficient grounds exist to proceed, the business licensing supervisor 1320
will schedule a hearing before the alcohol enforcement hearing board. Thirty (30) days' written 1321
notice must be provided to the applicant or licensee. Notice may be served personally or by 1322
registered letter, return receipt requested, at the licensed premises. Receipt by any adult 1323
employee of the business constitutes adequate service. The notice must include a description of 1324
the alleged conduct underlying the complaint; a description of the potential penalties; the date, 1325
time and place the hearing will be conducted; and a statement that the licensee has the right to 1326
appear, be represented by an attorney, call witnesses and present evidence. 1327
C. Hearings: 1328
1. Hearings will be conducted before the alcohol enforcement hearing board. An 1329
audio recording must be made. 1330
34
2. The applicant or licensee may be represented by an attorney, call witnesses, 1331
present evidence, and obtain administrative subpoenas from the city recorder as provided in title 1332
2, chapter 2.59 of this code. 1333
3.Strict adherence to the Utah rules of evidence is not required. The board may consider 1334
any relevant, nonprivileged oral or documentary evidence presented. 1335
4. After hearing the evidence presented, the board will make a factual determination, 1336
based on a preponderance of the evidence, whether the alleged grounds for enforcement have 1337
been proven. A finding by at least two (2) board members is sufficient to sustain a determination. 1338
The board may request that counsel for either party draft the findings of fact. 1339
5. If the board determines that there is not sufficient evidence to prove the alleged 1340
grounds for enforcement, then the matter will be dismissed. 1341
6. If the board determines that sufficient evidence exists to prove the grounds for 1342
enforcement, then it must determine the appropriate penalty based on the penalty matrix in 1343
section 5.51.080 of this chapter. The board must issue a written order, which may be drafted by 1344
counsel for either party, referencing its finding of facts, and stating the penalty imposed. 1345
1346
SECTION 26. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.080. That Section 5.51.080 1347
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed. 1348
5.51.080: LICENSE ENFORCEMENT ACTION; PENALTIES: RESERVED 1349
The board is authorized to suspend or revoke a license as provided under section 5.02.250 of this 1350
title. In addition, for violations of subsection 5.51.050A of this chapter, with respect to failure to 1351
comply with the terms of a conditional use permit, the following mandatory minimum penalties 1352
apply with respect to each condition for which a violation is found within a three (3) year period 1353
commencing on the date of the first offense. At the end of this three (3) year period, the tiered 1354
offense cycle starts over. 1355
A. Class I Violations: Violations of conditions that are required pursuant to the table of 1356
permitted and conditional uses found in section 21A.33.020 of this code are class I violations. 1357
1358
1359
35
B. Class II Violations: Violations of conditions added by the planning commission for the 1360
specific conditional use permit pursuant to the table of permitted and conditional uses found in 1361
section 21A.33.020 of this code are class II violations. 1362
1363
1364
C. Multiple Violations: For purposes only of the monetary penalties in this section, violations 1365
found to have occurred on days prior to and up to five (5) days after the licensee has received 1366
notice of the hearing shall constitute a single offense. Each day of violation proved to have 1367
occurred thereafter shall constitute a separate offense. If proven at the hearing, penalties for 1368
multiple violations may be imposed in a single hearing. 1369
1370
SECTION 27. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.090. That Section 5.51.090 1371
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed. 1372
5.51.090: APPEAL: RESERVED 1373
The applicant or licensee and the city may appeal any action of the board to the 3rd district court. 1374
For the purpose of the appeal, the record of the hearing includes the board's written findings and 1375
order, any evidence presented to the board, and the audio recording of the hearing. 1376
1377
SECTION 28. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.61.380. That Section 1378
5.61.380 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1379
5.61.380: APPEAL PROCEDURES: 1380
1381
A. If the license is denied or approved with qualifications, or if a notice of suspension, 1382
revocation or citation of a civil fine is imposed, the applicant or licensee may challenge that 1383
adverse action pursuant to the processes set forth in Chapter 2.75. file an appeal with the 1384
business licensing authority. 1385
B. Filing of an appeal must be within ten (10) days of the date of service of the notice of any 1386
denial, qualified approval, suspension, revocation or civil fine. Upon receiving the notice of such 1387
36
appeal, the business licensing authority shall schedule a hearing before a designated hearing 1388
officer within twenty (20) days from the date of the appeal unless such time shall be extended for 1389
good cause. 1390
C. The hearing officer shall hold a public hearing on the record, and take such facts and 1391
evidence as necessary to determine whether the denial, qualified approval, suspension, 1392
revocation or civil fine was proper under the law. 1393
D. The burden of proof shall be on the city. 1394
E. After the hearing, the hearing officer shall have seven (7) working days, unless extended 1395
for good cause, in which to render findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended 1396
decision to the mayor. 1397
F. Either party may object to the recommendation of the hearing officer by filing the party's 1398
objection and reasons, in writing, to the mayor or the mayor's designee within seven (7) days 1399
following the recommendation. In the event the hearing officer recommends upholding a 1400
suspension or revocation, the license shall be immediately suspended, and shall remain 1401
suspended until any subsequent appeal is decided. If no objections are received within the seven 1402
(7) days, the mayor or the mayor's designee may immediately adopt the recommendation of the 1403
hearing officer. 1404
G. If objections are received, the mayor or the mayor's designee shall have ten (10) working 1405
days to consider such objections before issuing the mayor's or the mayor's designee's final 1406
decision. The mayor or the mayor's designee may, in his or her discretion, take additional 1407
evidence or require written memorandum on issues of fact or law. The standard by which the 1408
mayor or the mayor's designee shall review the decision of the hearing officer is whether 1409
substantial evidence exists in the record to support the hearing officer's recommendation. 1410
H. An applicant aggrieved by the mayor's or the mayor's designee's decision shall have 1411
judicial review of such decision pursuant to rule 65.B, Utah rules of civil procedure, or any other 1412
applicable ordinance, statute or rule providing for such review. 1413
1414
SECTION 29. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.63.065. That Section 1415
5.63.065 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1416
5.63.065: DRIVER'S QUALIFICATIONS: 1417
A. Except as hereinafter set forth, no license or renewal of a pedicab driver license shall be 1418
issued to any of the following persons: 1419
1. Any person under the age of eighteen (18) years; 1420
2. Any person who is currently required to register with the sex and kidnap offender registry 1421
pursuant to title 77, chapter 41 of the Utah Code Annotated, or its successor; 1422
3. Any person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, narcotic or 1423
dangerous drugs, a felony conviction for an offense against a person or property, unless a 1424
37
period of not less than five (5) years shall have elapsed since the date of conviction or the 1425
date of release from confinement for such offense, whichever is later; 1426
4. Any person who has been convicted of driving a vehicle recklessly within the five (5) 1427
years immediately preceding application for a license; 1428
5. Any person who has been convicted of driving a vehicle while under the influence of 1429
alcohol or a controlled substance, or of being in or about a vehicle while under the 1430
influence of alcohol or a controlled substance with the intent of driving such vehicle, 1431
within the five (5) years immediately preceding application for a license; 1432
6. Any person who has been convicted of two (2) or more felonies. 1433
B. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A3 or A6 of this section, if a hearing 1434
examiner conducting a hearing pursuant to section 5.63.070 of this chapter or its successor 1435
section, receives documents or testimony at a hearing that proves by a preponderance of the 1436
evidence that the applicant has reformed his/her moral character so as to pose no threat to 1437
members of the public, then the hearing examiner may issue the license. Part of the documents or 1438
testimony used to establish the preponderance shall come from the applicant's parole officer if 1439
the applicant is still on parole. An applicant's failure to provide a recommendation from the 1440
applicant's parole officer if the applicant is on parole shall constitute grounds for denying the 1441
applicant's request. 1442
1443
SECTION 30. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.63.070. That Section 1444
5.63.070 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1445
5.63.070: APPEALHEARING UPON REJECTION: 1446
AnyIf the application for a pedicab driver license that is suspended, revoked, or associated 1447
applicationis rejected, the applicant/licensee shall be entitled to appeal such determination in 1448
accordance with Chapter 2.75, upon request, to a hearing before a hearing examiner as provided 1449
in chapter 5.02 of this title, or its successor. 1450
1451
SECTION 31. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.64.750. That Section 1452
5.64.750 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1453
5.64.750: SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION OF LICENSE: 1454
A. In addition to any penalties that may be imposed, any license issued under this article 1455
may be suspended or revoked for any of the following reasons: 1456
38
1. Fraud, misrepresentation, or knowingly false statement contained in the application 1457
for the license; 1458
2. Fraud, misrepresentation, or knowingly false statement in the course of carrying on 1459
the business of vending; 1460
3. Conducting the business of vending in any manner contrary to the conditions of the 1461
license; 1462
4. Conducting the business of vending in such a manner as to create a public nuisance; 1463
cause a breach of the peace; constitute a danger to the public health, safety, welfare, 1464
or morals; or interfere with the rights of property owners; or 1465
5. Cancellation of Utah Department of Agriculture authorization, or of the required 1466
authorization of any successor agency, for a food or beverage vending unit due to 1467
uncorrected health or sanitation violations. 1468
B. Any suspension of revocation of a license under this article shall be subject to 1469
Chapters 5.02 and 2.75. The business license administrator shall provide written notice of the 1470
suspension or revocation in a brief statement setting forth the complaint, the grounds for 1471
suspension or revocation, and notifying the licensee or permittee of the appeal procedure. Such 1472
notice shall be mailed to the address shown on the license holder's application by certified mail, 1473
return receipt requested. 1474
C. If the city revokes a vending license or permit, the fee already paid for the license 1475
or permit shall be forfeited. A person whose license or permit has been revoked under this 1476
section may not apply for a new license for a period of one year from the date that the revocation 1477
took effect. 1478
1479
SECTION 32. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.64.760. That Section 5.64.760 1480
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed. 1481
5.64.760: RESERVEDAPPEALS: 1482
If the business license administrator denies the issuance of a license or permit, suspends or 1483
revokes a license or permit, or orders the cessation of any part of the business operation 1484
conducted under the license or permit, the aggrieved party may appeal the administrator's 1485
decision in accordance with sections 5.02.260, 5.02.280, and 5.02.290 of this title. 1486
1487
SECTION 33. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.65.190. That Section 1488
5.65.190 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1489
39
5.65.190: DENIAL, SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF BUSINESS LICENSE: 1490
A. The Business License Administrator may revoke or suspend the business license 1491
or deny renewal thereof, of any person to conduct business on the sidewalks of Salt Lake City if 1492
he/she finds: 1493
1. That such person has violated or failed to meet any of the provisions of this 1494
chapter; 1495
2. That there are grounds for denial, suspension or revocation as set forth in 1496
section 5.02.250 of this title, or its successor section, or in any other Ccity 1497
ordinance or State or Federal law or regulation; 1498
3. That such person has been convicted within the last seven (7) years of any crime 1499
involving moral turpitude, narcotic or dangerous drugs, or offenses against a 1500
person or property; 1501
4. Any required license or permit has been suspended, revoked or canceled; or 1502
5. The permittee does not have a currently effective insurance policy in the 1503
minimum amount provided in this chapter; or 1504
6. That the permittee has abandoned the use of the permit operating location for the 1505
conducting of business. The failure of a permittee to vend from a vending cart 1506
within the permittee's permit operating location for thirty (30) continuous 1507
calendar days or more, except during the period of December, January, and 1508
February, shall constitute abandonment. 1509
B. A denial, revocation, or suspension of a license shall be conducted pursuant to the 1510
procedures set forth in Chapter 5.02.Upon denial, suspension or revocation, the Business License 1511
Supervisor shall give notice of such action to the permit holder or applicant, as the case may be, 1512
in writing stating the action he/she has taken and the reasons therefor. Such notice shall contain 1513
the further provision that it shall become final and effective within ten (10) days, unless such 1514
action is the result of a failure of the permittee to maintain liability insurance as required by this 1515
chapter, or is the result of a threat to the public health, safety or welfare in which case the action 1516
shall be effective immediately upon issuance of such notice. Any person receiving such notice, 1517
other than a notice effective upon issuance, shall have ten (10) days from the date of receipt 1518
thereof to file a written request with the Business License Administrator for a hearing thereon 1519
before a hearing examiner appointed by the Mayor. Upon receipt of such request the Business 1520
License Administrator shall schedule a hearing in accordance with the procedures set forth 1521
in chapter 5.02 of this title, or its successor chapter. If the notice of denial, suspension or 1522
revocation is effective upon issuance thereof, as provided in this section, a hearing shall be held 1523
within five (5) business days of the date of issuance without any requirement of a request for 1524
such hearing from the permit holder. 1525
1526
40
SECTION 34. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.71.010. That Section 1527
5.71.010 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1528
5.71.010: DEFINITIONS: 1529
The following words and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings defined 1530
and set forth in this section: 1531
AIRPORT SHARED RIDE SERVICE: Ground transportation provided by an authorized ground 1532
transportation business contracted through the department of airports to provide on demand 1533
shared ride service to and from the Salt Lake City International Airport. 1534
AIRPORT SHARED RIDE VEHICLE: Any authorized ground transportation vehicle operating 1535
under contract with the department of airports to provide airport shared ride service to and from 1536
the Salt Lake City International Airport. 1537
APPLICANT: An individual who has submitted an application to the department to obtain a 1538
ground transportation vehicle operator's badge pursuant to article VII of this chapter. 1539
AUTHORIZED GROUND TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS: Any business operating any 1540
ground transportation vehicle, which has a current, valid business license as required by the city 1541
and which: 1542
A. Registers the business in accordance with the requirements established by the 1543
department, and 1544
B. Is current with all fees or charges imposed by the department and city. 1545
AUTOMOBILE: Any motor vehicle with passenger seating for five (5) persons or less, not 1546
including the driver. 1547
BUS: Any licensed motor vehicle operated on the streets and highways for hire on a scheduled or 1548
nonscheduled basis with a seating capacity of twenty five (25) or more passengers, not including 1549
the driver. 1550
BUSINESS: A voluntary association legally formed and organized to carry on a business in Utah 1551
in the legal name of the association, including, without limitation, a corporation, limited liability 1552
company, partnership, or sole proprietorship. 1553
BUSINESS LICENSING OFFICE: The department of financedivision of building services and 1554
licensing of Salt Lake City Corporation, or its successor. 1555
CERTIFICATE: A certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the city. 1556
CIVIL NOTICE: A written notice of a ground transportation violation as provided under this 1557
chapter. 1558
COMMENT FORM OR FORM: The form described in section 5.71.270 of this chapter, or its 1559
successor. 1560
41
COURTESY VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle regularly operated on Salt Lake City streets for 1561
transportation of customers and/or baggage without making a specific separate charge to the 1562
passenger for such transportation. 1563
DEPARTMENT: The Salt Lake City dDepartment of aAirports or such other city department or 1564
division as may be designated by the mayor to have responsibility for the enforcement of this 1565
chapter. 1566
DEPARTMENT AUTOMATED VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION (AVI) TAG: An electronic 1567
transponder used to identify vehicles and provide the department with vehicle data and billing 1568
information. 1569
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: The director of the department designated by the mayor to have 1570
responsibility for the enforcement of this chapter or the authorized designee of such director. 1571
DEPARTMENT INSPECTION: An inspection of a ground transportation vehicle by the 1572
department to verify that the vehicle meets the standards set by the department director, 1573
department rules and regulations, applicable contracts, and applicable city ordinances, including, 1574
without limitation, the exterior and interior of the vehicle and all associated vehicle licensing, 1575
safety, and insurance requirements. 1576
DEPARTMENT INSPECTION SEAL: A sticker or seal issued by the department to signify that 1577
a ground transportation vehicle has passed the required department inspection. These department 1578
inspection seals are nontransferable and no ground transportation vehicle may be operated 1579
without such seal. 1580
DEPARTMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS: Rules and regulations developed and adopted 1581
by the department director to govern commercial ground transportation operations within the 1582
city. 1583
FIXED SCHEDULE: Ground transportation service operating on a regular time schedule 1584
previously announced as to time of departure and arrival between definitely established and 1585
previously announced points along definitely established and previously announced routes 1586
regardless of whether passengers or freight are to be carried. 1587
GROUND TRANSPORTATION APPEAL COMMITTEE: A committee established by the 1588
department director to hear and rule on appeals, suspensions, and other matters related to ground 1589
transportation in and connected with the city. 1590
GROUND TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS: Any business operating any ground transportation 1591
vehicle. 1592
GROUND TRANSPORTATION SERVICE: The transportation of passengers by a ground 1593
transportation business. 1594
GROUND TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle used for the transportation of 1595
persons using Salt Lake City streets for commercial purposes, regardless of whether a fee or fare 1596
is collected. 1597
HEARING OFFICER: A hearing officer of the Salt Lake City justice court. 1598
42
HOLDER: A person to whom a certificate of public convenience and necessity has been issued. 1599
HOTEL VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle regularly operated by a ground transportation business 1600
under contract to or directly by a motel, hotel, or other lodging business, to provide 1601
transportation of customers and/or baggage for the contracted establishment for which 1602
transportation the customer is charged a separate fee or fare, and which is subject to a contract 1603
filed with the department providing for operating the vehicle. 1604
LIMOUSINE: Any vehicle described by its manufacturer or aftermarket manufacturer as a 1605
limousine or a luxury vehicle, with a driver furnished, who is dressed in professional business 1606
attire or a chauffeur's uniform. 1607
MINIBUS: Any motor vehicle with a passenger seating capacity of sixteen (16) to twenty four 1608
(24) persons, not including the driver. 1609
NAMED PARTY: The driver, vehicle owner, or authorized ground transportation business 1610
named in a civil notice issued by the city. 1611
ON DEMAND AIRPORT SERVICE OR ON DEMAND SERVICE: Transportation provided by 1612
an authorized ground transportation business which is not "scheduled service" or "prearranged 1613
service" as defined in this section. 1614
OPERATOR: Persons engaged in the ground transportation business. 1615
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: Those persons who are not acutely ill, who do not require the 1616
services of an ambulance, and who need or desire special transportation equipment or 1617
accommodation for physical or mental infirmities. 1618
PREARRANGED SERVICE: Transportation provided by an authorized ground transportation 1619
business from points within the city to destinations within the city, or beyond, for which the 1620
authorized ground transportation business providing such transportation has recorded the name 1621
or description of prospective passenger and the date and time of the request for transportation at 1622
least thirty (30) minutes prior to the transporting of the passenger by such vehicle. 1623
SCHEDULED SERVICE: Transportation provided by an authorized ground transportation 1624
business on a fixed schedule posted with and approved by the department in advance of such 1625
transportation. 1626
SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle for hire, other than an airport 1627
shared ride vehicle, ambulance, or taxicab, which vehicle is designed, equipped, and used for the 1628
transportation of persons with disabilities. 1629
SPECIALTY VEHICLES: Any vehicles that are unique in their design, or built for a specific 1630
purpose, including, but are not limited to, special conversion vehicles and classic or collector 1631
automobiles, but excluding special transportation vehicles. 1632
STARTER: A person appointed by and representing a ground transportation business who is 1633
responsible for managing the coordination of vehicles and passenger transportation for that 1634
business. 1635
43
TAXI STAND: A public place alongside the curb of a street, or elsewhere in the city, which has 1636
been designated by the mayor or the mayor's designee as reserved for the use of taxicabs 1637
available for hire by passengers, including places otherwise marked as freight zones or other 1638
parking restricted zones if designated for use of taxicabs during specified times. 1639
TAXICAB: A motor vehicle used in the on demand, for hire transportation of passengers or 1640
baggage over public streets and not operated over a fixed route or upon a fixed schedule, but 1641
which is subject for contract hire by persons desiring special trips from one point to another, as 1642
provided under chapter 5.72 of this title, or its successor chapter, and authorized to operate in 1643
Salt Lake City by contract with the department. 1644
TERMINAL OF TRANSPORTATION: A facility or location having the primary purpose of 1645
facilitating ground transportation services, such as, but not limited to, the Salt Lake City 1646
Intermodal Hub. 1647
TRAILER: A wheeled vehicle designed to be pulled by a motor vehicle for the transportation of 1648
freight, luggage, or other items. 1649
VAN: Any licensed motor vehicle other than those designated as a limousine with a passenger 1650
seating capacity of six (6) to twelve (12), not including the driver. 1651
VEHICLE OPERATOR'S BADGE OR OPERATOR'S BADGE: An identification badge issued 1652
by the department to an individual to signify that the individual has met the requirements to 1653
operate a ground transportation vehicle. 1654
1655
SECTION 35. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 5.71.300.B. That 1656
Subsection 5.71.300.B of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1657
5.71.300: CIVIL PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT: 1658
B. The department may revoke, suspend, or deny the application for or a renewal of 1659
an operator's badge, department automated vehicle identification tag or department inspection 1660
seal for violations of any provision of this title, department rules and regulations, or other 1661
applicable law. Such action may be appealed in accordance with Chapter 2.75.The person or 1662
business affected may request, in writing filed with the department, an appeal hearing before the 1663
ground transportation appeal committee. Any such revocation, suspension, or denial of renewal 1664
shall remain in effect until the party against whom such action is taken requests reinstatement 1665
and the ground transportation appeal committee determines that reinstatement is appropriate. 1666
1667
SECTION 36. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.71.310. That Section 1668
5.71.310 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1669
44
5.71.310: ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES; CIVIL NOTICE OF GROUND 1670
TRANSPORTATION VIOLATION: 1671
Civil notices under this chapter, other than those involving revocations, suspensions, denials or 1672
approvals of a business license, operator's badge, department automated vehicle identification 1673
tags and department inspection seal, may be contested pursuant to the procedures and processes 1674
governing the adjudication of civil notices of violation as set forth in Chapter 2.75section 1675
5.88.030 of this title or its successor section. 1676
1677
SECTION 37. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.71.310. That Section 1678
5.71.310 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed in its entirety: 1679
5.71.320: EXPEDITED APPEAL OF EXCLUSION: 1680
Any named party who is excluded from pursuing commercial activities under this chapter , and 1681
has not had a hearing before the Ground Transportation Appeal Committee regarding such 1682
exclusion as provided for in this chapter, may request an expedited appeal of the action that 1683
resulted in such exclusion. Such appeal shall be requested in writing by the party so excluded to 1684
the department. The department shall promptly investigate the facts relating to such exclusion. If 1685
the evidence indicates such exclusion is improper under this chapter, the Department Director 1686
may reverse the action that resulted in such exclusion. If the Department Director does not 1687
reverse such action, the action resulting in such exclusion shall be heard and determined by the 1688
Ground Transportation Appeal Committee in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. If a 1689
preponderance of the evidence indicates such exclusion is proper under this chapter the Ground 1690
Transportation Appeal Committee shall uphold such exclusion. 1691
1692
SECTION 38. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.72.005. That Section 1693
5.72.005 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1694
5.72.005: DEFINITIONS: 1695
The following words and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings defined 1696
and set forth in this section: 1697
BUSINESS: A voluntary association legally formed and organized to carry on a business in Utah 1698
in the legal name of the association, including, without limitation, a corporation, limited liability 1699
company, partnership, or sole proprietorship. 1700
CERTIFICATE: A certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the city. 1701
CITY: The governmental institution and landmass contained within the boundaries of Salt Lake 1702
City, Utah. 1703
45
CIVIL NOTICE: A written notice of a ground transportation violation as provided under this 1704
chapter. 1705
CLEARED: That condition of a taximeter when it is inoperative with respect to all fare 1706
registration and all cumulative fare and extras charges have been set to zero dollars ($0.00). 1707
CONCESSIONAIRE: A person or entity with whom the department of airports has contracted to 1708
provide taxicab services. 1709
DEPARTMENT: The Salt Lake City dDepartment of aAirports or such other city department or 1710
division as may be designated by the mayor to have responsibility for the enforcement of this 1711
chapter. 1712
DEPARTMENT CONTRACT: A valid, existing, and current contract negotiated and approved 1713
by the department for providing taxicab or other services within the corporate boundaries of Salt 1714
Lake City, including the airport. 1715
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: The director of the department designated by the mayor to have 1716
responsibility for the enforcement of this chapter or the authorized designee of such director. 1717
DEPARTMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS: Rules and regulations developed and adopted 1718
by the department director to govern ground transportation service and businesses within the 1719
city. 1720
EXTRAS: Charges to be paid by a customer or passenger in addition to the fare. 1721
FACE: That side of a taximeter upon which passenger or customer charges for hire of a taxicab 1722
are indicated. 1723
FARE: That portion of the charge for hire of a taxicab which is automatically calculated by the 1724
taximeter through the operation of the mileage and time mechanism. 1725
GROUND TRANSPORTATION APPEAL COMMITTEE: A committee established by the 1726
department director to hear and rule on appeals, suspensions, and other matters related to ground 1727
transportation in and connected with the city. 1728
HAIL A TAXICAB: The act of a person to call out for, or to signal for, an in service taxicab that 1729
is not already engaged in transport of passengers to respond to the person's location for hiring 1730
and transport of persons or property. 1731
HIRED: The button on the face of a taximeter, which when activated places the taximeter in 1732
operation, signifying the start of a billing process for the person(s) engaging the use of the 1733
taxicab. 1734
IN SERVICE: A taxicab that is in use on the streets of the city, with a driver, and available for 1735
the transportation of passengers for hire. 1736
PERSON: An individual, a corporation or other legal entity, a partnership, and any incorporated 1737
association. 1738
TAXI STAND: A public place alongside the curb of a street, or elsewhere in the city, which has 1739
been designated by the mayor or the mayor's designee as reserved for the use of taxicabs 1740
46
available for hire by passengers, including places otherwise marked as freight zones or other 1741
parking restricted zones if designated for use of taxicabs during specified times. 1742
TAXICAB: A motor vehicle with a seating capacity of five (5) passengers or less, not including 1743
the driver, or a van with a passenger seating capacity of six (6) to twelve (12), not including the 1744
driver, used in the on demand, for hire transportation of passengers or baggage over the public 1745
streets and not operated over a fixed route or upon a fixed schedule, but which is subject for 1746
contract hire by persons desiring special trips from one point to another and authorized to operate 1747
in Salt Lake City by contract with the department. 1748
TAXIMETER: A meter instrument or electronic device attached to a taxicab which measures 1749
mileage by the distance driven and the waiting time upon which the fare is based, and which 1750
automatically calculates, at a predetermined rate or rates, and registers, the charge for hire of a 1751
taxicab. 1752
WAITING TIME: The time when a taxicab is not in motion, from the time of hiring by a 1753
passenger to the time of discharge of passenger(s). 1754
1755
SECTION 39. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 5.72.855.B. That 1756
Subsection 5.72.855.B of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1757
B. The department may revoke, suspend, or deny renewal of an operator's badge, 1758
department automated vehicle identification tag or department inspection seal for violations of 1759
any provision of this title, department rules and regulations, or other applicable law. Such action 1760
may be appealed in accordance with Chapter 2.75.The person or business affected may request, 1761
in writing filed with the department, an appeal hearing before the Ground Transportation Appeal 1762
Committee. Any such revocation, suspension, or denial of renewal shall remain in effect until the 1763
party against whom such action is taken requests reinstatement and the Ground Transportation 1764
Appeal Committee determines that reinstatement is appropriate. 1765
1766
SECTION 40. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.72.890. That Section 1767
5.72.890 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1768
5.72.890: ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES; CIVIL NOTICE OF GROUND 1769
TRANSPORTATION VIOLATION: 1770
Civil notices under this chapter, other than those involving revocations, suspensions, denials, or 1771
approvals of a business license, operator's badge, department automated vehicle identification 1772
tags and department inspection seal, may be contested pursuant to the procedures and processes 1773
governing the adjudication of civil notices of violation as set forth in Chapter 2.75section 1774
5.88.030 of this title or its successor section. 1775
47
1776
SECTION 41. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.72.900. That Section 1777
5.72.900 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed as follows: 1778
5.72.900: EXPEDITED APPEAL OF EXCLUSION: 1779
Any named party who is excluded from pursuing commercial activities under this chapter, and 1780
has not had a hearing before the Ground Transportation Appeal Committee regarding such 1781
exclusion as provided for in this chapter, such party may request an expedited appeal of the 1782
action that resulted in such exclusion. Such appeal shall be requested in writing by the party so 1783
excluded to the department. The department shall promptly investigate the facts relating to such 1784
exclusion. If the evidence indicates such exclusion is improper under this chapter, the 1785
Department Director may reverse the action that resulted in such exclusion. If the Department 1786
Director does not reverse such action, the action resulting in such exclusion shall be heard and 1787
determined by the Ground Transportation Appeal Committee in accordance with the provisions 1788
of this chapter. If a preponderance of the evidence indicates such exclusion is proper under this 1789
chapter the Ground Transportation Appeal Committee shall uphold such exclusion. 1790
1791
SECTION 42. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.74.170. That Section 1792
5.74.170 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1793
5.74.170: LICENSE; REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION; CONDITIONS: 1794
A. The licensee shall be responsible for the operation of the licensed premises in 1795
conformance with this code. Upon a finding by the mayor of a violation, after hearing before the 1796
mayor, or his or her designee, or upon conviction of the licensee, operator, agent or any person 1797
of the following violations occurring in or on the premises licensed pursuant to this chapter, tThe 1798
mayorcity may revoke or suspend the license or licenses covering the businesses conducted on 1799
such premises, regardless of the ownership thereof, for a period of time up to and including one 1800
year for the following violations: 1801
1. A violation or conviction of Utah cCode section 76-9-301.8, 76-9-702, or 76-10-1802
1206; 1803
2. A violation of any provision set forth in this chapter; 1804
3. A violation or conviction of any ordinance referred to in 1805
section 5.74.040 or 5.74.070 of this chapter; or a violation or conviction of 1806
section 5.28.060 of this title or section 11.16.100 of this code, or their successors; 1807
4. Violations or convictions of any material misrepresentation, or for any fraud 1808
perpetrated on the licensing authority through application or operation of such 1809
business; 1810
48
5. A violation of any law of the state, or ordinance of the city which affects the health, 1811
welfare and safety of its residents, and which violation occurred as a part of the main 1812
business activity licensed under this chapter and not incidental thereto; 1813
6. A violation or conviction of showing motion pictures for which the establishment is 1814
not properly licensed as required by this chapter. 1815
B. The foregoing provisions of this section, or its successor, notwithstanding, 1816
nothing herein shall authorize a revocation or suspension of any license of any theater, motion 1817
picture house or concert hall based on a prior conviction or violation of exhibiting or distributing 1818
obscene material. 1819
1820
SECTION 43. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.74.180. That Section 1821
5.74.180 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1822
5.74.180: LICENSE; SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION; PROCEDURES: 1823
A. Hearing And Notice: Any suspension or revocation of a license pursuant to this 1824
chapter shall not be had until a hearing is first held before the mayor or the mayor's designee be 1825
conducted as provided in Chapter 5.02 of this title or its successor. Reasonable notice of the time 1826
and place of such hearing, together with notice of the nature of charges or complaint against the 1827
licensee or its premises sufficient to reasonably inform the licensee and enable him or her to 1828
answer such charges and complaint, shall be served upon the licensee as provided by the Utah 1829
rules of civil procedure. Any decision to revoke or suspend a license shall be stayed until the 1830
time period for appealing the decision has expired or a decision on any appeal is issued pursuant 1831
to the provisions of Chapter 2.75. 1832
B. Exhaustion Of Remedies: If a violation is found by the mayor or hearing 1833
examiner, or a conviction is obtained under subsection 5.74.170A1 of this chapter, or its 1834
successor, such revocation or suspension shall not take effect until the license holder or 1835
individual found in violation or convicted thereunder has had opportunity to exhaust all his or 1836
her administrative and appellate remedies. 1837
1838
SECTION 44. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.88.030. That Section 1839
5.88.030 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1840
5.88.030: ENFORCEMENT INVOLVING NOTICES OF VIOLATION: 1841
1842
A. Notices of violation shall be adjudicated as civil violations in accordance with the 1843
procedures set forth in title 2, cChapter 2.75 of this Code. 1844
1845
49
B. Any person having received a notice of violation, as provided in this chapter, shall appear 1846
before a City Hearing Officer and present and contest such alleged violation. 1847
1848
C. The burden to prove any defense shall be upon the person raising such defense. Nothing 1849
herein shall affect the City's burden to prove each element of the underlying charge by a 1850
preponderance of evidence. 1851
1852
D. If the City Hearing Officer finds that no violation as set forth in the notice of violation 1853
has occurred or that such a violation has occurred but one (1) or more of the affirmative defenses 1854
set forth in this section is applicable, the Hearing Officer may dismiss the notice of violation and 1855
release the recipient of the notice from liability thereunder or the Hearing Officer may reduce the 1856
penalty associated therewith. Such affirmative defenses are: 1857
1858
1. At the time of the receipt of the notice of violation, the person receiving such notice of 1859
violation: 1860
1861
a. Was not an owner or other responsible party with respect to the business at issue; and 1862
b. Did not engage in any actions or omissions that contributed to the violation at issue; 1863
2. Compliance with the subject ordinances would have presented an imminent and 1864
irreparable injury to persons or property; 1865
3. All remedial requirements outlined in the notice of violation were completed on or before 1866
the compliance date; 1867
4. Such other mitigating circumstances expressly described in this title that correspond to 1868
specific violations of an ordinance in this title; or 1869
5. Such other mitigating circumstances as may be approved by the City Attorney's Office. 1870
1871
E. Any person not satisfied with the outcome of their appearance before the City Hearing 1872
Officer with respect to the notice of violation they received, may appear before the small claims 1873
court to contest such alleged violation. 1874
1875
BF. If the alleged ordinance violation involves an ordinance for which a more specific 1876
enforcement provision is set forth thereinlocated in chapter 5.08, 5.09, 5.14, 5.15, 5.51, 5.61, 1877
5.71, or 5.72 of this title, then the more specific enforcement provisions and processes set forth 1878
in the chapter that corresponds to the violation shall supersede the provisions of this section. 1879
1880
SECTION 45. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.88.040. That Section 1881
5.88.040 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1882
5.88.040: PENALTIES FOR CIVIL VIOLATIONS: 1883
A. The following penalties shall be imposed where a notice of violation is issued for 1884
a violation of the Ccity ordinances set forth in this title: 1885
1. Where a notice of violation has been issued for a first violation of a Ccity 1886
ordinance, such notice of violation shall constitute a written warning. 1887
50
2. Where a notice of violation has been issued for a second violation of a Ccity 1888
ordinance, the recipient of such notice of violation shall pay a civil penalty of two 1889
hundred fifty dollars ($250.00). 1890
3. Where a notice of violation has been issued for a third violation of a Ccity 1891
ordinance, the recipient of such notice of violation shall pay a civil penalty of five 1892
hundred dollars ($500.00). 1893
4. Where a notice of violation has been issued for a fourth or subsequent violation of 1894
a Ccity ordinance, the recipient of such notice of violation shall: 1895
a. Pay a civil penalty of five hundred dollars ($500.00); and 1896
b. Shall be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year from the date on 1897
which the notice of violation was issued. 1898
5. If, during the period of probation specified in subsection A4b of this section, a 1899
notice of violation is issued for a violation of the same ordinance that resulted in 1900
such probation, then: 1901
a. The recipient of such notice of violation shall pay a civil penalty of five 1902
hundred dollars ($500.00); 1903
b. The business license of the recipient of such notice of violation shall be 1904
revoked; and 1905
c. The recipient of such notice of violation may not reapply for a new business 1906
license for at least six (6) months from the date of revocation. 1907
B. Any reference to second, third, fourth, and subsequent violations refers to repeat 1908
violations of the same Ccity ordinance that occur within a twenty four (24) month period. Unless 1909
a specified citation interval is provided by ordinance related to the specific violation or license at 1910
issue, then citations for ongoing violations may be issued every fifteen (15) calendar days. 1911
C. The Ccity may not revoke a business license pursuant to subsection A5b of this 1912
section without satisfying the due process requirements set forth in Ssections 5.02.250, 5.02.260, 1913
and 5.02.290 of this title. 1914
D. If the alleged ordinance violation involves an ordinance for which a more specific 1915
enforcement provision or penalty is set forth thereinlocated in chapter 5.08, 5.09, 5.14, 5.15, 1916
5.51, 5.61, 5.71, or 5.72 of this title, then the more specific enforcement provisions, processes, 1917
and penalties set forth in the chapter that corresponds to the violation shall supersede the 1918
provisions of this section. 1919
1920
SECTION 46. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 8.04.020. That Section 1921
8.04.020 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1922
51
8.04.020: ANIMAL SERVICES: 1923
Animal services may be provided through a legally executed agreement, which includes the 1924
authority and power to enforce this title. Alternatively, the city may elect to provide its own 1925
animal services without entering into a contract with an outside provider. In the event that animal 1926
control services are provided by another political subdivision, the duly enacted ordinances and 1927
regulations of that political subdivision shall apply and supersede the requirements of this Title. 1928
1929
SECTION 47. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 8.15.025. That Section 1930
8.15.025 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: 1931
1932
8.15.025: NOTICES OF VIOLATION: 1933
1934
A. Notices of violations shall be adjudicated as civil violations in the small claims court in 1935
accordance with the procedures set forth in title 2, cChapter 2.75 of this code. 1936
1937
B. Any person having received a notice of violation, as provided in this chapter, may appear 1938
before the small claims court and present and contest such alleged violation. 1939
1940
C. The burden to prove any defense shall be upon the person raising such defense. Nothing 1941
herein shall affect the city's burden to prove each element of the underlying charge by a 1942
preponderance of evidence. 1943
1944
D. If the administrative hearing officer finds that no violation as set forth in the notice of 1945
violation has occurred or that such a violation has occurred but one or more of the affirmative 1946
defenses set forth in this section is applicable, the hearing officer may dismiss the notice of 1947
violation and release the recipient of the notice from liability thereunder or the hearing officer 1948
may reduce the penalty associated therewith. Such affirmative defenses are: 1949
1950
1. At the time of the receipt of the notice of violation, the person receiving such 1951
notice of violation was not the owner or the person responsible for the animal and 1952
his/her actions did not contribute to the issuance of the notice of violation; 1953
2. Compliance with the subject ordinances would have presented an imminent and 1954
irreparable injury to persons or property; or 1955
3. Such other mitigating circumstances as may be approved by the city law 1956
department. 1957
1958
1959
SECTION 48. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 9.08.115.B. That 1960
Subsection 9.08.115.B of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as 1961
follows: 1962
52
1963
B. Any violation of this chapter shall constitute a civil violation and shall be handled as 1964
provided by title 2, cChapter 2.75 of this code. Notice of a civil violation may be given:(1) to an 1965
owner, occupant, lessee, or agent of the property by hand delivery or 2) by mailing of the notice 1966
by first class mail to the owner of record. Civil penalties shall be imposed as follows: 1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
SECTION 49. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 11.14.050. That Section 1972
11.14.050 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 1973
11.14.050: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS: 1974
1975
A. A Salt Lake City justice court shall consider matters relating to services fees. Service fees 1976
and costs imposed pursuant to this chapter shall be adjudicated as civil violations in accordance 1977
with Chapter 2.75. 1978
1979
B. Any person having received notice of the assessment of a services fee may appear before 1980
the Salt Lake City justice court and present and contest the alleged violation upon which the 1981
services fee was based. 1982
1983
C. If the Salt Lake City justice court finds that no violation occurred and one or more of the 1984
defenses set forth in this section is applicable, the justice court may dismiss the services fee 1985
notice, release the defendant from liability for the services fee, or modify the services fee as 1986
justice and equity may require. Such defenses are: 1987
1988
1. Wrong name and address on the services fee notice; 1989
2. Compliance with the subject ordinances would have presented an imminent and 1990
irreparable injury to persons or property; 1991
3. Such other mitigating circumstances as may be shown by the appellant. 1992
1993
D. If the Salt Lake City justice court finds that a services fee was properly imposed and no 1994
applicable defense exists, the justice court may, in the interest of justice and on behalf of the city, 1995
enter into an agreement for the timely or periodic payment of the services fee. 1996
1997
1998
53
SECTION 50. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 12.24.016. That Section 1999
12.24.016 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 2000
12.24.016: RESERVEDVEHICLE OWNER DRIVING WITHOUT OWNER'S AND 2001
OPERATOR'S SECURITY: 2002
2003
A. It is unlawful for any owner of a motor vehicle with respect to which a security is 2004
required under Utah motor vehicle owner's or operator's security laws, to drive such motor 2005
vehicle or permit such motor vehicle to be driven upon streets or highways within the corporate 2006
limits of the city, without security being in effect, as required by the Utah financial responsibility 2007
of motor vehicle owner's and operator's act, section 41-12a-301 et seq., Utah Code Annotated, or 2008
their successor sections. 2009
2010
B. The foregoing notwithstanding, no person cited for a violation of this section shall be 2011
adjudged guilty of a violation hereof, if such person produces reasonable evidence before the 2012
justice court in accordance with the procedures set forth in title 2, chapter 2.75 of this code, or its 2013
successor, that such security was in effect at the time such person was issued a citation for failure 2014
to have such evidence in his or her possession. Evidence of such security being in effect may be 2015
in the form of an identification card approved by the Utah department of public safety for 2016
issuance by an insurer to its insured with respect to the motor vehicle. 2017
2018
C. An increased penalty may be imposed for a second and subsequent offense within three 2019
(3) years of a previous conviction or forfeiture of penalty. 2020
2021
2022
SECTION 51. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 12.24.018. That Section 2023
12.24.018 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 2024
2025
12.24.018: RESERVEDDRIVING WITHOUT OWNER'S AND OPERATOR'S 2026
SECURITY: 2027
2028
A. It is unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle which is subject to the 2029
requirements of insurance contained in the Utah financial responsibility of motor vehicle owner's 2030
and operator's act, section 41-12a-301 et seq., Utah Code Annotated, or their successor sections, 2031
anywhere within the corporate limits of the city, knowing that the owner of the motor vehicle 2032
does not have security in effect as required by the Utah financial responsibility of motor vehicle 2033
owner's and operator's act. 2034
2035
B. The foregoing notwithstanding, no person cited for a violation of this section shall be 2036
adjudged guilty of a violation hereof if such person produces reasonable evidence before the 2037
justice court, in accordance with the procedures set forth in title 2, chapter 2.75 of this code, or 2038
its successor, that said security was in effect at the time such person was issued a citation for 2039
failure to have such evidence in his or her possession. Evidence of such security being in effect 2040
54
may be in the form of an identification card approved by the Utah department of public safety for 2041
issuance by an insurer to its insured with respect to the motor vehicle. 2042
2043
C. An increased penalty may be imposed for a second and subsequent offense within three 2044
(3) years of a previous conviction or forfeiture of penalty. 2045
2046
2047
SECTION 52. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 12.24.018. That Section 2048
12.56.570 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 2049
2050
12.56.570: UNAUTHORIZED USE OF STREETS; APPEAL PROCEDURES: 2051
2052
A. The Mayor shall appoint such Hearing Officers as he or she deems appropriate to 2053
consider matters relating to the unauthorized use of streets. 2054
2055
AB. Any person having received a citation as to unauthorized use of streetsnotice of 2056
such unauthorized use, or the owner of any vehicle employed in such use, may appeal such 2057
notice pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.75appear before a Hearing Officer and 2058
present and contest such alleged unauthorized use. 2059
2060
C. The burden to prove any defense shall be upon the person raising such defense. 2061
2062
D. The Hearing Officer may find that no unauthorized use occurred and dismiss the ticket. 2063
2064
BE. If the hearing officer or administrative appealsHearing oOfficer, as applicable, 2065
finds that an unauthorized use occurred but one or more of the defenses set forth in this section is 2066
applicable, theythe Hearing Officer may dismiss the notice of unauthorized use and release the 2067
owner or driver from liability thereunder. Such defenses are: 2068
2069
1. At the time of the receipt of the notice, possession of the subject vehicle had been 2070
acquired by a third party in violation of the criminal laws of the State; 2071
2. If the notice of unauthorized use of streets alleges a violation of any ordinance 2072
pertaining to a parking meter, such meter was mechanically malfunctioning to the 2073
extent that its reliability is questionable; 2074
3. Compliance with the subject ordinances would have presented an imminent and 2075
irreparable injury to persons or property; 2076
4. CitationsParking notices for overtime parking at ain metered or in a time restricted 2077
zones received by a Ccity employee or guest while on official Salt Lake City business 2078
will be dismissed upon written request from the applicable Ddepartment Ddirector or 2079
designee on official letterhead or by electronic mail. The request must be made within 2080
ten (10) days of receipt of the citationnotice and must include a brief description of 2081
the reason for the request, and be submitted to the: Salt Lake City Corporation 2082
director of revenue operations, Traffic Manager, 333 South 200 East, P.O. Box 2083
55
145499, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5499. Parking violations other than overtime 2084
parking and meter violations will not be dismissed in this manner; 2085
5. Unlimited time parking by employees of other governmental entities on official 2086
business exempt vehicles will be allowed at Ccity meters and time restricted 2087
locations. In order to qualify, the exempt vehicle must either be a marked official 2088
vehicle pursuant to Section 12.56.590, or it must be included in the city’s exempt 2089
databasedisplay a placard or sticker issued by Salt Lake City Parking Enforcement or 2090
the vehicle's license plate must be registered with Salt Lake City Parking 2091
Enforcement for enrollment in any license plate recognition system used to regulate 2092
parking enforcement. Requests for placards must include a brief description of the 2093
reason for the request and be submitted to: Salt Lake City Parking Enforcement, P.O. 2094
Box 145552, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5552. Requests for dismissals of other 2095
parking violations will may be considered and should be submitted to the: Salt Lake 2096
City Corporation director of revenue operations, Traffic Manager, 333 South 200 2097
East, P.O. Box 145499, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5499; 2098
6. If the Hearing Officer finds that the owner of the vehicle is deceased but was living 2099
when the ticket was issued; 2100
7. If the Hearing Officer finds that the vehicle was sold by a third party with the original 2101
license plates on, and the citation was issuedticket was received prior to the sale, 2102
provided the sale is reported to the DMV and the bill of sale is submittedprovided 2103
within twenty (20) days of receipt of the parking citationnotice. 2104
2105
CF. If the hearing officer or administrative appealsHearing oOfficer, as applicable, finds that 2106
an unauthorized use occurred but one or more of the defenses set forth in this section is 2107
applicable, they Hearing Officer may reduce the penalty associated therewith, but in no event 2108
shall such penalty be reduced below the sum of ten dollars ($10.00). Such defenses are: 2109
2110
1. At the time of receipt of the notice, possession of the subject vehicle had been 2111
acquired by another party pursuant to a written lease agreement or similar written 2112
agreement; 2113
2. The subject vehicle was mechanically incapable of being moved from such location; 2114
provided, however, such defense shall not apply to any vehicle which remains at such 2115
location in excess of six (6) hours; 2116
3. Any markings, signs or other indicia of parking use regulation were not clearly visible 2117
or comprehensible; 2118
4. At the time of the notice of violation a responsible person receiving such notice of 2119
violation had, but failed to properly display, a special disability group license plate or 2120
placard that was valid and relevant to the violation for which the citation was 2121
issuednotice of violation. However, a Hearing Officer may not reduce the associated 2122
civil penalty below the minimum penalty amount set forth in Utah Code section 41-2123
1a-1306, or its successor section; 2124
5. At the time a citation issued for failure to display of the notice of violation a 2125
residential parking permit a valid residential parking permit existed, but such permit 2126
was valid but not properly displayed; 2127
6. Such other mitigating circumstances as the Hearing Officer may find, with the written 2128
have been approved by the parking civil manager approval of the court's Traffic 2129
56
Manager, which must include the basis for the decision. A report on such decisions is 2130
to be provided to the Mayor and City Council on a quarterly basis. 2131
2132
G. If the Hearing Officer finds that an unauthorized use occurred and no applicable defense 2133
exists, the Hearing Officer may, in the interest of justice and on behalf of the City, enter into an 2134
agreement for the timely or periodic payment of the applicable penalty. 2135
2136
DH. If the penalty imposed pursuant to this chapter remains unsatisfied after forty (40) 2137
days from the receipt of the citationnotice, or ten (10) days from such date as may have been 2138
agreed to by the Hearing Officer, the cCity may use such lawful means as are available to collect 2139
such penalty, including costs and attorney fees. Such collection efforts shall be stayed while an 2140
appeal is pending before a hearing officer or administrative appeals officer pursuant to Chapter 2141
2.75. 2142
2143
2144
SECTION 53. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 14.20.110. That Section 2145
14.20.110 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 2146
2147
14.20.110: FAILURE TO REMOVE HAIL, SNOW, ICE AND SLEET; CIVIL 2148
PENALTIES: 2149
2150
A. Any owner, occupant, lessor, or agent of property abutting a paved city sidewalk who 2151
fails to comply with sSection 14.20.070 of this chapter commitsis guilty of a civil violation. Such 2152
violation shall be handled by the Salt Lake City justice court in accordance with the procedures 2153
set forth in title 2, cChapter 2.75 of this code, or its successor. Notice of a civil violation may be 2154
given: 1) to the owner, occupant, lessor, or agent of the property by hand delivery, or 2) by 2155
mailing of the notice by first class mail to the owner of record. 2156
2157
B. The civil penalty for violation of this section shall be as set forth below: 2158
2159
1. For any property with street front footage of two hundred feet (200') or less: 2160
2161
a. Fifty dollars ($50.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet is not 2162
removed from sidewalks within twenty four (24) hours; 2163
b. Seventy five dollars ($75.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet is not 2164
removed from sidewalks within forty eight (48) hours; and 2165
c. One hundred dollars ($100.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet is 2166
not removed from sidewalks within seventy two (72) hours. 2167
2168
2. For any property with street front footage of more than two hundred feet (200'): 2169
2170
a. One hundred dollars ($100.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet is 2171
not removed from sidewalks within twenty four (24) hours; 2172
57
b. One hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet 2173
is not removed from sidewalks within forty eight (48) hours; and 2174
c. Two hundred dollars ($200.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet is 2175
not removed from sidewalks within seventy two (72) hours. 2176
2177
2178
SECTION 54. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 14.32.625. That Section 2179
14.32.625 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 2180
14.32.625: APPEAL OF SUSPENSION, REVOCATION, OR STOP ORDER: 2181
2182
Any suspension or revocation or stop order by the city engineer may be appealed in accordance 2183
with the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.75by the permittee to the director of public services by 2184
filing a written notice of appeal within ten (10) days of the action of the city engineer. The 2185
director of public services shall hear such appeal, if written request therefor be timely filed, as 2186
soon as practicable, and render his/her decision within a reasonable time following filing of 2187
notice of appeal. 2188
2189
2190
SECTION 55. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 16.60.090. That Section 2191
16.60.090 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 2192
16.60.090: DEFINITIONS: 2193
The following words and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings defined 2194
and set forth in this section: 2195
AIRPORT SHARED RIDE SERVICE: Ground transportation provided by an authorized ground 2196
transportation business contracted through the department of airports to provide on demand 2197
shared ride service to and from the Salt Lake City International Airport. 2198
AIRPORT SHARED RIDE VEHICLE: Any authorized ground transportation vehicle operating 2199
under contract with the department of airports to provide airport shared ride service. 2200
AUTHORIZED GROUND TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS: Any business operating any 2201
ground transportation vehicle, which has a current, valid business license as required by the city 2202
and which: 2203
A. Registers the business in accordance with the requirements established by the department, 2204
and 2205
B. Is current with all fees or charges imposed by the department or city. 2206
AUTOMOBILE: Any motor vehicle with passenger seating for five (5) persons or less not 2207
including the driver. 2208
58
BUS: Any motor vehicle with a seating capacity of twenty five (25) passengers or more, not 2209
including the driver. 2210
BUSINESS: A voluntary association legally formed and organized to carry on a business in Utah 2211
in the legal name of the association, including, without limitation, a corporation, limited liability 2212
company, partnership, or sole proprietorship. 2213
CIVIL NOTICE: The written notice of a ground transportation violation. 2214
COURTESY VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle regularly operated on Salt Lake City streets for 2215
transportation of customers and/or baggage without making a specific separate charge to the 2216
passenger for such transportation. 2217
DEPARTMENT: The Salt Lake City dDepartment of aAirports. 2218
DEPARTMENT AUTOMATED VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION (AVI) TAG: An electronic 2219
transponder used to identify vehicles and provide the department with vehicle data and billing 2220
information. 2221
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: The director of the Salt Lake City dDepartment of aAirports. 2222
DEPARTMENT INSPECTION SEAL: A sticker or seal issued by the department to signify that 2223
a ground transportation vehicle has passed the required department inspection. These department 2224
inspection seals are nontransferable and no ground transportation vehicle may be operated 2225
without such seal. 2226
DEPARTMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS: Rules and regulations developed and adopted 2227
by the department director to govern ground transportation service and businesses at the airport. 2228
FIXED SCHEDULE: Ground transportation service operating on a regular time schedule 2229
previously announced as to time of departure and arrival between the airport and definitely 2230
established and previously announced points along definitely established and previously 2231
announced routes regardless of whether there are passengers or freight to be carried. 2232
GROUND TRANSPORTATION APPEAL COMMITTEE: A committee established by the 2233
department director to hear and rule on appeals, suspensions, and other matters related to ground 2234
transportation in and connected with the city. 2235
GROUND TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS: Any business operating any ground transportation 2236
vehicle. 2237
GROUND TRANSPORTATION SERVICE: The transportation of passengers by a ground 2238
transportation business. 2239
GROUND TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle used for the transportation of 2240
persons using Salt Lake City streets for commercial purposes regardless of whether a fee or fare 2241
is collected. 2242
HOTEL VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle regularly operated by a ground transportation business 2243
under contract to or directly by a motel, hotel, or other lodging business to provide transportation 2244
of customers and/or baggage for the contracted establishment, for which transportation the 2245
59
customer is charged a separate fee or fare, and which is subject to a contract filed with the 2246
department providing for operating the vehicle. 2247
LIMOUSINE: Any vehicle described by its manufacturer or aftermarket manufacturer as a 2248
limousine or a luxury vehicle, with a driver furnished, who is dressed in professional business 2249
attire or a chauffeur's uniform. 2250
MINIBUS: Any motor vehicle with a seating capacity of sixteen (16) to twenty four (24) 2251
passengers, not including the driver. 2252
ON DEMAND AIRPORT SERVICE OR ON DEMAND SERVICE: Transportation provided by 2253
an authorized ground transportation business which is not "scheduled service" or "prearranged 2254
service from the airport" as defined in this section. 2255
OPERATOR: Persons engaged in the ground transportation business. 2256
PREARRANGED SERVICE FROM THE AIRPORT: Transportation from the airport to points 2257
within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City provided by an authorized ground transportation 2258
business which is contracted for between such business and the person to be transported, or by an 2259
agent of the person, prior to the arrival of the person at the Salt Lake City International Airport. 2260
Prearranged service from the airport shall include airport ground transportation contracted for by 2261
an airline company on behalf of its own passengers whose regular air travel may have been 2262
disrupted in some manner. An agent may include a travel agent, family member, employee, 2263
business or meeting planner, but excludes an authorized ground transportation business. 2264
SCHEDULED SERVICE: Transportation provided by an authorized ground transportation 2265
business on a fixed schedule posted with the department in advance of such transportation. 2266
TAXI STAND: A public place alongside the curb of a street, or elsewhere in the city, which has 2267
been designated by the mayor or the mayor's designee as reserved for the use of taxicabs 2268
available for hire by passengers, including places otherwise marked as freight zones or other 2269
parking restricted zones if designated for use of taxicabs during specified times. 2270
TAXICAB: A motor vehicle used in the on demand for hire transportation of passengers or 2271
baggage over the public streets and not operated over a fixed route or upon a fixed schedule, but 2272
which is subject for contract hire by persons desiring special trips from one point to another, as 2273
provided under title 5, chapter 5.72 of this code, or its successor chapter, and authorized to 2274
operate in Salt Lake City by contract with the department. 2275
VAN: Any licensed motor vehicle other than those designated as a limousine with a passenger 2276
seating capacity of six (6) to twelve (12), not including the driver. 2277
VEHICLE OPERATOR'S BADGE OR OPERATOR'S BADGE: An identification badge issued 2278
by the department to an individual to signify that the individual has met the requirements to 2279
operate a ground transportation vehicle. 2280
2281
SECTION 56. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 16.64.030. That Section 2282
16.64.030 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 2283
60
16.64.030: CIVIL PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT: 2284
A. Any person or entity in violation of this title, department rules and regulations, or 2285
other applicable law is subject to civil penalties and any other lawful action as may be taken by 2286
the Department Director to ensure the safe and effective operations of the airport. 2287
B. The Ccity may revoke, suspend, or deny renewal of a Ccity business license to 2288
operate a business for violation of any provision of this title, department rules and regulations, or 2289
other applicable law as provided under title 5, cChapter 5.02 of this Code. 2290
C. The department may revoke, suspend or deny renewal of an operator's badge, 2291
department automated vehicle identification tag, or department inspection seal for violation of 2292
any provision of this title, department rules and regulations, or other applicable law. Such action 2293
may be appealed in accordance with Chapter 2.75.The person or business affected may request, 2294
in writing filed with the department, an appeal hearing before the Ground Transportation Appeal 2295
Committee. Any such revocation, suspension or denial of renewal shall remain in effect until the 2296
party against whom such action is taken requests reinstatement, and the Ground Transportation 2297
Appeal Committee determines that reinstatement is appropriate. 2298
2299
SECTION 57. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 16.64.050. That Section 2300
16.64.050 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 2301
2302
16.64.050: ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES; CIVIL NOTICE OF GROUND 2303
TRANSPORTATION VIOLATION: 2304
2305
A. Civil notices under this chapter, other than those involving revocations, suspensions, 2306
denials or approvals of a business license, operator's badge, department automated vehicle 2307
identification tags and department inspection seals shall be heard by the Salt Lake City justice 2308
court. Any named party may appear before a hearing officer and present and contest an alleged 2309
violation may be contested as provided in title 2, cChapter 2.75 of this code, or its successor. 2310
2311
B. The burden to prove any defense shall be upon the person raising such defense. Nothing 2312
herein shall affect the city's burden to prove each element of the underlying charge by a 2313
preponderance of evidence. 2314
2315
C. If the hearing officer finds that no violation of this chapter occurred, or that a violation 2316
occurred but one or more of the defenses set forth in this section is applicable, the hearing officer 2317
may dismiss the civil notice and release the named party from liability thereunder, or may reduce 2318
the penalty associated therewith as he or she shall determine. Such defenses are: 2319
2320
1. The civil notice does not contain the information required by this chapter; 2321
2. Compliance with the subject ordinances would have presented an imminent and 2322
irreparable injury to persons or property; or 2323
3. Such other mitigation circumstances as may be approved by the city attorney’s 2324
office. 2325
61
2326
2327
SECTION 58. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 16.64.060. That Section 2328
16.64.060 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be repealed as follows: 2329
16.64.060: EXPEDITED APPEAL OF EXCLUSION: 2330
Any named party who is excluded from pursuing commercial activities under this chapter, and 2331
has not had a hearing before an Appeal Committee regarding such exclusion as provided for in 2332
this chapter, may request an expedited appeal of the action that resulted in such exclusion. Such 2333
appeal shall be requested in writing by the party so excluded to the department. The department 2334
shall promptly investigate the facts relating to such exclusion. If the evidence indicates such 2335
exclusion is improper under this chapter, the Department Director may reverse the action that 2336
resulted in such exclusion. If the Department Director does not reverse such action, the action 2337
resulting in such exclusion shall be heard and determined by an Appeal Committee in accordance 2338
with the provisions of this chapter. If a preponderance of the evidence indicates such exclusion is 2339
proper under this chapter the Appeal Hearing Committee shall uphold such exclusion. 2340
2341
2342
SECTION 59. Amending the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. That the Salt 2343
Lake City consolidated fee schedule shall be, and hereby is, amended, in pertinent part, to reflect 2344
the fees set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and that a copy of the amended Salt Lake City 2345
consolidated fee schedule shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website. 2346
2347
SECTION 60. Effective Date. That this ordinance shall become effective on the date of 2348
publication. 2349
2350
2351
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _______ day of 2352
________________, 2025. 2353
2354
______________________________ 2355
CHAIRPERSON 2356
2357
ATTEST: 2358
2359
2360
______________________________ 2361
62
CITY RECORDER 2362
2363
2364
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________________. 2365
2366
Mayor’s Action: _____Approved. _____Vetoed. 2367
2368
2369
______________________________ 2370
MAYOR 2371
2372
ATTEST: 2373
2374
2375
____________________________ 2376
CITY RECORDER 2377
2378
2379
(SEAL) 2380
2381
Bill No. _______ of 2025. 2382
Published: ____________________. 2383
2384
Ordinance Establishing Uniform Administrative Hearing Process_v7 2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
63
2390
2391
EXHIBIT A 2392
2393
2394
GENERAL FUNDS MISCELLANEOUS FEES
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Appeal of a decision to an administrative
appeals officer
$____ Fee will not be greater than the base
civil penalty being appealed.
2.75.170.C
2395
2396
This page has intentionally been left blank
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2025
(Providing a general administrative hearing process for violations of the Salt Lake City Code)
An ordinance amending Titles 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 16 of the Salt Lake City Code to
establish a uniform administrative hearing process for civil violations of city code.
WHEREAS, a petition was submitted by Mayor Erin Mendenhall to amend portions of
Salt Lake City Code to modify regulations pertaining to an administrative hearing process for the
resolution of administrative citations; and
WHEREAS, the city has a significant interest in the timely and effective resolution of
appeals of administrative citations in a manner that provides due process of law; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the Salt Lake 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,
as follows:
SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.59. That Chapter 2.59
of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
2.59.010: PURPOSE:
It is the purpose of this chapter to provide for the issuance of city subpoenas to the extent
authorized by state law, including, but not limited to, Utah Code Section 10-3-610.
2.59.020: EXECUTIVE BRANCH SUBPOENAS:
The executive branch may authorize subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses located
within the state to give testimony or to produce records and documents or other items.
2
A. A subpoena may be authorized upon signature of the mayor or his or her designee or by a
department head.
B. All executive subpoenas must also be endorsed by the city attorney, deputy city attorney,
or any assistant city attorney. The attorney's signature shall be an affirmation the subpoena is an
appropriate exercise of administrative power prior to the recorder issuing the subpoena.
2.59.030: LEGISLATIVE BRANCH SUBPOENAS:
The city council may authorize a subpoena upon a majority vote of the council. Such subpoenas
shall be signed by any member of the council voting to authorize the subpoena. Upon such vote
and signature, the subpoena shall be reviewed and approved "as to form" by the city attorney,
deputy city attorney or any assistant city attorney and shall then be issued by the city recorder.
2.59.035: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER SUBPOENAS:
A. A city appointed administrative appeals officer may issue subpoenas in connection with
administrative hearings conducted pursuant to Sections 2.75.190 and 2.24.050 and Chapters
21A.16 and 21A.18 to compel the attendance of persons or the production of nonprivileged
and/or nonconfidential documents at such proceedings.
B. The administrative appeals officer shall not issue the subpoena if (1) the documents or
testimony sought by the subpoena are not relevant, (2) the documents or testimony sought by the
subpoena are not helpful to decide the issues at the hearing considering the significance and
nature of the factual disputes at issue in the hearing, (3) the subpoena is intended to harass or
annoy any party or the subject thereof, or (4) the subpoena is requested for the purpose of delay
or to cause an undue burden.
C. The administrative appeals officer shall consider objections by the parties and any non-
party subject to a subpoena pursuant to the applicable policies and procedures for such
administrative hearing.
D. The administrative appeals officer shall comply with the procedures for issuance of a
subpoena as set forth in the applicable policies and procedures for such administrative hearing.
2.59.040: ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS:
A. All executive or legislative subpoenas shall be issued by the city recorder's office. The
recorder's office shall keep a record containing: 1) the date of issuance, 2) the matter for which
the subpoena was issued, 3) returns of all subpoenas, and 4) at whose request the subpoena was
issued.
B. All executive or legislative subpoenas shall be issued with an original and a copy. The
original, together with proof of service, shall be returned to the recorder's office and a copy left
with the person upon whom it is served.
3
C. The subpoena shall be issued in the name of the city and shall be entitled "city subpoena"
and shall state whether it is before the legislative branch or the executive branch. The subpoena
shall state the title of the matter being heard and shall command each person to whom it is
directed to attend and give testimony and/or produce records or documents at a time and place
specified in the body of the subpoena.
D. Nothing in this section shall limit the city's authority to issue subpoenas in criminal
matters as provided by law.
2.59.050: RESERVED
2.59.060: SERVICE OF CITY SUBPOENAS:
Service shall be in accord with rule 4 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
2.59.070: RESERVED
2.59.080: PAYMENT OF SUBPOENA COSTS:
A. Cost of Subpoenas Issued on Behalf of the City: All costs of service and witness fees for
subpoenas issued on behalf of the city shall be paid by the department (including the mayor's
office or the city council) on whose behalf the subpoena was issued, unless or until a fund is
created to pay for these costs. These costs shall include witness fees and mileage.
B. Subpoenas Issued on Behalf of Other Parties: All costs of service and witness fees for
subpoenas issued on behalf of any person other than the city shall be paid by the person
requesting issuance of the subpoena.
C. City Documents: Any party requesting city production of city documents shall pay all the
costs of producing the documents, including, but not limited to, the search costs, employee salary
costs and cost of reproduction of the documents. Each department required to furnish the
documents shall collect its own costs.
D. Witness Fees: Witness fees shall be the same as authorized in Utah Code Section 78B-1-
119, or its successor.
2.59.090: ENFORCEMENT OF SUBPOENAS:
Any party who willfully fails to comply with the subpoena, or who, having appeared, refuses to
answer any question pertinent to the matter under inquiry, except in accord with privileges
granted by law, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished in accord with the punishments
set by the state for class B misdemeanors.
4
SECTION 2. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.75. That Chapter
2.75 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows:
CHAPTER 2.75
ENFORCEMENT OF CIVIL VIOLATIONS
Article I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
2.75.010: PURPOSE AND INTENT:
2.75.020: SCOPE:
2.75.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED:
2.75.040: CRIMINAL PROSECUTION RIGHT:
2.75.050: DEFINITIONS:
2.75.010: PURPOSE AND INTENT:
For specified administrative citations, as more particularly defined and designated in the Salt
Lake City Code, which are issued by the city, it is the purpose and intent of the city to afford
the recipient of such citation due process of law. Due process shall require proper notice of the
nature of the violation and the opportunity to be heard.
2.75.020: SCOPE:
The provisions of this chapter may be applied to all violations of the Salt Lake City Code that are
enforced through the issuance of an administrative citation and occur within Salt Lake City limits
and such territory outside Salt Lake City limits over which the city has jurisdiction or control by
virtue of any law or constitutional provision. However, if a more specific enforcement procedure
for a particular class of violations is expressly set forth in the Salt Lake City Code, then that
specifically-enumerated enforcement procedure shall apply.
2.75.030: EXISTING LAW CONTINUED:
The provisions of this chapter are not intended to invalidate any other provision of the Salt Lake
City Code and shall be read in harmony therewith.
2.75.040: CRIMINAL PROSECUTION RIGHT:
5
The provisions of this chapter shall not be construed to limit the city’s right to prosecute a
violation of the Salt Lake City Code as a criminal offense.
2.75.050: DEFINITIONS:
In the construction of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall be as defined as set
forth in this section:
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICER: A person appointed by the mayor to conduct
administrative enforcement hearings.
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: A citation notifying a person of an administrative violation.
The term “administrative citation” shall be deemed to include any reference in this code to a
“civil notice”, a “notice of violation”, an itemized statement of abatement costs, a notice of
abatement, or other notice of any adverse municipal decision for which the right to an
administrative enforcement hearing is specifically provided by ordinance.
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: All costs incurred by the city in connection with an administrative
violation, including but not limited to costs incurred in preparing for and attending an
administrative enforcement hearing.
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING: A hearing held by an administrative
appeals officer pursuant to the procedures established by this chapter.
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER: An order issued by an administrative appeals
officer pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, including but not limited to an order to pay civil
penalties and administrative costs.
ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLATION: Any violation of the Salt Lake City Code that the city has
elected not to prosecute as a criminal citation. The term “administrative violation” shall be
deemed to include any reference in this code to a “civil violation” where such civil violation is
subject to the processes and procedures set forth in this chapter.
CITY: The city of Salt Lake City, Utah.
CITY COUNCIL: The legislative body of Salt Lake City, Utah.
CIVIL PENALTY: A penalty imposed on a responsible person in conjunction with the issuance
of an administrative citation for a violation of the Salt Lake City Code.
HEARING OFFICER: A person authorized to facilitate the informal resolution of administrative
violations through an initial determination conducted prior to an administrative enforcement
hearing.
6
INITIAL DETERMINATION: An informal hearing conducted by a hearing officer where the
hearing officer reviews the evidence provided by the responsible person to whom the
administrative citation corresponds and makes a determination as to whether such evidence
justifies upholding or dismissing the administrative citation.
ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS: A written notice that informs a responsible person of
abatement actions taken by the city and provides an itemized statement of costs for those actions.
MAYOR: The mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah.
NOTICE OF ABATEMENT: A written notice that informs a responsible person of abatement
actions taken by the city and provides an itemized statement of costs for those actions.
PERSON: Any natural person, firm, joint venture, joint stock company, partnership, association,
club, company, corporation, business trust, organization, or the manager, lessee, agent, officer, or
employee of the same, or any other entity or individual recognized by law as having rights or
duties.
RESPONSIBLE PERSON: A responsible person includes:
A. A person who causes or materially contributes to the causation of an administrative
violation or is otherwise responsible for an administrative violation as set forth in the
Salt Lake City Code; or
B. A person whose agent, employee, or independent contractor causes or materially
contributes to the causation of an administrative violation; or
C. The owner or occupant of real property within the city’s jurisdiction at which a
violation of the Salt Lake City Code occurs or exists.
Article II
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY
2.75.060: ADOPTION OF POLICY AND PROCEDURES:
2.75.070: DESIGNATION OF HEARING OFFICERS:
2.75.080; POWERS OF HEARING OFFICERS:
2.75.090: APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICERS:
2.75.100: POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICERS:
2.75.110: FALSE INFORMATION OR REFUSAL PROHIBITED:
2.75.120: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, AIDING, AND ABETTING:
2.75.060: ADOPTION OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES:
The chief administrative officer, or his/her designee, shall establish policies and procedures
addressing the enforcement of civil violations if such policies and procedures are consistent with
the provisions of this chapter.
7
2.75.070: DESIGNATION OF HEARING OFFICERS/ELECTIVE USE:
A. The department responsible for issuing the administrative citation may elect to refer
appeals of the same to the hearing officer process set forth in Sections 2.75.130, 2.75.160 and
2.75.170. In the event such election is not made, such department shall provide a similar
informal process to evaluate any evidence provided by the recipient of an administrative citation
that a violation did not occur or that there is good cause to rescind or otherwise provide relief
from the administrative citation. The administrative enforcement hearings process set forth in
Sections 2.75.90, 2.75.100, and Article III below shall be available to appeal such departmental
initial determination.
B. The department of finance shall designate hearing officers through any process consistent
with the city’s human resources policies and procedures. A hearing officer may be a city
employee.
2.75.080: POWERS OF HEARING OFFICERS:
A. A hearing officer shall conduct informal initial determinations regarding violations of the
Salt Lake City Code as provided in this chapter.
B. The hearing officer shall have the authority to:
1. Determine whether a violation has occurred; and
2. Subject to Section 2.75.170.B, dismiss an administrative citation; or
3. Subject to Section 2.75.170.B, uphold the administrative citation and reduce the civil
penalty associated with the administrative citation; or
4. Uphold the administrative citation without reducing the civil penalty associated with
the administrative citation.
2.75.090: APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICERS:
A. The mayor, with the advice and consent of the city council, shall appoint one or more
administrative appeals officers to conduct administrative enforcement hearings.
B. An administrative appeals officer:
1. Shall not participate in any appeal in which the officer has a conflict of interest
prohibited by Chapter 2.44; and
2. Shall be either law trained or have significant experience with the requirements and
operations of administrative hearing processes.
C. An administrative appeals officer shall serve for renewable terms of three years and,
during any three-year term, shall be subject to removal by the mayor only for cause.
8
2.75.100: POWERS & JURISDICTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICERS:
A. Except where a more specific enforcement appeal process is provided for in the Salt
Lake City Code, and, where a responsible person or the city has properly requested an
administrative enforcement hearing, an administrative appeals officer shall hear appeals
challenging any administrative citation.
B. An administrative appeals officer shall have authority to hold an administrative
enforcement hearing for violations of the Salt Lake City Code and such other matters as
specifically designated by ordinance.
C. Standard of Review: The standard of review for an appeal shall be de novo. The
administrative appeals officer shall review the matter anew, based upon applicable
procedures and standards for approval, and shall give no deference to the decision
resulting in the administrative citation. The administrative appeals officer shall uphold
the administrative citation unless it is not supported by substantial evidence or it
violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect when the administrative citation was
issued.
D. Burden of Proof: The appellant has the burden of proving that the administrative
citation is incorrect, or in the event the city is the appellant, that the hearing officer
erred.
E. An administrative appeals officer may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or may
modify the administrative citation.
F. After issuing a decision on the appeal, an administrative appeals officer has continuing
jurisdiction over the subject matter of an administrative enforcement hearing for the
purposes of: issuing further administrative orders to obtain compliance with the
decision; authorizing the city to enter upon private property to abate a violation;
modifying an administrative order, staying an administrative order, assessing costs of
abatement, assessing a civil penalty; or, where extraordinary circumstances exist,
granting a new hearing.
G. An administrative appeals officer shall not make any order contrary to any law or that
would require or allow a person to violate state law or city ordinance.
H. An administrative appeals officer may issue administrative subpoenas pursuant to
Chapter 2.59 in accordance with the policies and procedures adopted pursuant to
Section 2.75.060.
2.75.110: FALSE INFORMATION OR REFUSAL PROHIBITED:
9
It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully make a false statement or refuse to give the
person’s name or address with intent to deceive or interfere with the performance of the official
duties of the person issuing the administrative citation, the hearing officer, or the administrative
appeals officer under the provisions of this chapter.
2.75.120: ACTS INCLUDE CAUSING, AIDING, AND ABETTING:
Whenever any act or omission is made unlawful in this chapter, it shall include causing,
permitting, aiding, or abetting such act or omission.
Article III
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
2.75.130: ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION APPEAL PROCEDURE OVERVIEW:
2.75.140: ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION:
2.75.150: CIVIL PENALTIES ASSESSED:
2.75.160: REQUEST FOR INITIAL DETERMINATION:
2.75.170: INITIAL DETERMINATION PROCEDURES:
2.75.180: NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING:
2.75.190: ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING PROCEDURES:
2.75.200: ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER:
2.75.210: APPEAL TO DISTRICT COURT:
2.75.220: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS:
2.75.130: ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION APPEAL PROCEDURE OVERVIEW:
Administrative citations and timely appeals thereof shall be processed using the following
procedural framework:
A. When there is a determination that a violation of the Salt Lake City Code has occurred,
any authorized city personnel may issue an administrative citation for such violation to
the responsible person;
B. Any person receiving an administrative citation shall, within ten (10) calendar days, or
such longer period if stated on the administrative citation, either (1) comply with the
terms of the administrative citation, including payment of any specified civil penalty then
due, or (2) file a written request for an initial determination on a form provided by the
department of finance. The written request for an initial determination shall include a
statement describing the grounds that support the person’s challenge to the administrative
citation and shall be accompanied by any evidence the person desires to submit to a
hearing officer. After reviewing such written request and the submitted evidence, a
hearing officer shall render a written determination regarding the challenged
10
administrative citation. The written determination shall promptly be sent to all parties to
the initial determination.
C. If the recipient of the administrative citation does not agree with the determination of the
hearing officer, then the recipient of the administrative citation shall file a written request
for an administrative enforcement hearing and pay the administrative enforcement
hearing fee as set forth in the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule within ten (10)
days of the hearing officer’s written decision. After such a request for hearing is received,
an administrative enforcement hearing will be held and an administrative appeals officer
will issue an administrative enforcement order regarding the administrative citation.
D. Within thirty (30) days of the date the administrative enforcement order is issued, both
the city and the recipient of the administrative citation shall have the right to appeal the
administrative enforcement order by filing a petition for review with the Third District
Court of Utah.
2.75.140: ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION:
A. An administrative citation may be issued to any responsible person.
B. The administrative citation shall include the following information:
1. Name of responsible person (if the name of the responsible person cannot
reasonably be ascertained, then a description of the real or personal property that
is the subject of the violation shall suffice);
2. Location of violation;
3. Date when the violation is observed;
4. A code citation and a description of each violation;
5. The amount of the civil penalty that corresponds to each violation;
6. Procedures for paying civil penalties;
7. Any instructions or other guidance specific to the facts of the violation at issue
and any corrective action available to the responsible person other than payment
of the civil penalty, if applicable; and
8. Procedures to request an initial determination and a description of the
consequences for failure to request or appear at such initial determination.
C. Notice of an administrative citation shall be issued to a responsible person in the
following manner:
1. Personally delivering the administrative citation to the responsible person; or
2. Sending the citation by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the responsible
person; or
3. Posting a copy of the administrative citation on the real or personal property
that gave rise to the administrative citation.
11
D. Service of an administrative citation is effective upon utilizing any method of issuance
set forth in Section 2.75.140.C. However, the deadline set forth in Section 2.75.160.A
shall be extended by 7 days if a citation is served pursuant to Section 2.75.140.C.2.
2.75.150: CIVIL PENALTIES ASSESSED:
A. Any person receiving an administrative citation shall comply with the terms of the
administrative citation, including payment of any specified civil penalty then due, unless
an initial determination is requested.
B. If the Salt Lake City Code states that the civil penalty for a particular administrative
violation will be reduced if payment is received within a specified time period, then the
city’s receipt of either payment or a request for an initial determination prior to the
expiration of that specified time period will permit the recipient of the administrative
citation to receive that penalty reduction. However, after all requested determinations and
hearings have been concluded, a person may forfeit such penalty reduction by failing to
timely pay any civil penalty ordered by the hearing officer or administrative appeals
officer, as applicable.
C. The civil penalty for each violation listed on an administrative citation shall be as set
forth in the Salt Lake City Code.
D. If the civil penalties payable to the city remain unsatisfied, and no written request for an
initial determination has been timely filed, the city may use such lawful means as are
available to collect such civil penalties.
2.75.160: REQUEST FOR INITIAL DETERMINATION:
A. Any person receiving an administrative citation shall, within ten (10) calendar days, or
such longer period if stated on the administrative citation, either (1) comply with the
terms of the administrative citation, including payment of any specified civil penalty then
due, or (2) file a written request for an initial determination on a form provided by the
department of finance.
B. Any recipient of an administrative citation may request a copy of the documents
maintained by the city supporting the administrative citation.
C. A request for an initial determination shall be submitted to the department of finance,
either electronically or by submitting a hard copy document, on a form provided by the
department of finance. The request shall include:
1. The administrative citation number or case file number, as applicable;
2. The name, physical address, telephone number, and email address of the person
requesting the initial determination;
12
3. A statement describing the grounds that support the person’s challenge to the
administrative citation, which shall set forth every theory of relief that will be presented to the
hearing officer; and
4. Any evidence the person desires to submit for the initial determination.
D. Failure by a person to timely request an initial determination shall constitute a waiver of
the right to any initial determination and administrative enforcement hearing and a waiver
of the right to challenge the administrative citation. If an initial determination is not
timely requested and administrative citation is not complied with then the city may elect
to enforce the administrative citation by any lawful means.
2.75.170: INITIAL DETERMINATION PROCEDURES:
A. A request for an initial determination filed in compliance with the requirements of
Section 2.75.160 shall be processed as follows:
1. The city shall bear the burden of proof to establish the existence of a violation of the
Salt Lake City Code. Such proof shall be established by a preponderance of the evidence.
2. The hearing officer shall review the written request for an initial determination,
including the arguments and evidence set forth therein;
3. The hearing officer shall also review any evidence related to the administrative citation
provided by the issuer thereof; and
4. The hearing officer shall issue a written determination regarding the administrative
citation within five (5) business days from the date the written request for an initial
determination is received. The hearing officer’s written decision may:
a. Dismiss the administrative citation;
b. Uphold the administrative citation and reduce the associated civil
penalty; or
c. Uphold the administrative citation without reducing the associated
civil penalty.
B. A hearing officer shall only dismiss an administrative citation or reduce a civil penalty
associated therewith as follows:
1. If the person receiving the administrative citation is not the responsible party;
2. If the administrative citation does not comply with Section 2.75.140.
3. The city has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation
identified in the administrative citation occurred.
4. Imminent injury to persons or property would result from compliance with the
administrative citation.
5. All corrective actions outlined in the notice of violation were completed on or before
the compliance date.
6. Such mitigating circumstances expressly identified in the Salt Lake City Code
corresponding to the specific violation at issue.
13
7. When conducting an initial determination involving an alleged violation for
unauthorized use of streets, a hearing officer may only dismiss an administrative citation
or reduce the civil penalties corresponding to such a citation pursuant to the criteria set
forth in Section 12.56.570, or its successor.
8. Civil penalties shall not be reduced where a violation is sustained by the hearing
officer but the responsible person has not yet complied with the corrective action, if any,
identified in the administrative citation.
9. Or as otherwise limited by law.
C. A person adversely affected by a hearing officer’s written determination, or written
determination of the applicable department if the department has not elected to use a
hearing officer pursuant to Section 2.75.070, may appeal that written determination by
filing a completed request for an administrative enforcement hearing within ten (10) days
of the date on which the written determination was issued. A request for an
administrative enforcement hearing shall be made in writing on a form provided by the
department of finance and may be filed, either electronically or by submitting a hard copy
document, with the department of finance. The request shall include:
1. The administrative citation number or case file number, as applicable;
2. The name, address, telephone number, and email address of the person requesting the
hearing;
3. A statement describing the grounds that support the person’s challenge to the
administrative citation, which shall set forth every theory of relief that will be presented
to the administrative appeals officer;
4. Any evidence the person desires to submit for the administrative appeals officer’s
consideration; and
5. An administrative enforcement hearing fee as set forth in the Salt Lake City
consolidated fee schedule. However, in no case shall the administrative enforcement
hearing fee assessed be greater than the base civil penalty that corresponds to the
cumulative administrative violation(s) at issue. In the event that the city is the appellant,
no hearing fee shall be payable from either party. The hearing fee shall be due at the time
of filing the hearing request. An administrative enforcement hearing request shall not be
considered complete until the hearing fee is paid.
a. If the citation recipient prevails at the administrative enforcement
hearing, the administrative enforcement hearing fee shall be refunded to
the citation recipient. Otherwise, no refund of the hearing fee shall be
granted. A modification of the administrative citation or mere reduction in
the civil penalty shall not render the citation recipient the prevailing party.
D. Failure by a person to timely request an administrative enforcement hearing shall
constitute a waiver of the right to make any further challenge regarding the administrative
citation or result of the initial determination. If an administrative enforcement hearing is
not timely requested and the hearing officer’s written determination, or the written
determination of the applicable department if the department has not elected to use a
hearing officer pursuant to Section 2.75.070, has not been complied with, then the city
14
may elect to enforce the administrative citation, or written determination to the extent it
modified the administrative citation, by any lawful means.
2.75.180: NOTICE & ATTENDANCE AT ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT
HEARING:
A. Upon receipt of a request for an administrative enforcement hearing the administrative
appeals officer shall schedule and hold a hearing in accordance with the standards and
procedures adopted in Section 2.75.060. All administrative enforcement hearings shall be open
to the public and shall be recorded.
B. Notification of the date, time and place of the hearing shall be given a minimum of
twelve (12) calendar days in advance of the hearing.
C. Time Limitation: All administrative enforcement hearings shall be held within one
hundred eighty (180) days of the written determination by the hearing officer, or department if
applicable. Appeals not heard within this time frame will be considered moot and the associated
administrative citation withdrawn by the city.
D. If a person, without good cause, fails to appear at an administrative enforcement hearing
then the administrative appeals officer may (1) render a decision based solely upon the
arguments and evidence submitted prior to the hearing by the non-appearing party and any
arguments and evidence submitted by the appearing party at the hearing, or (2) grant a decision
by default to the appearing party. The administrative appeals officer shall have discretion to
determine whether good cause for an absence exists.
2.75.190: ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT HEARING PROCEDURES:
A. Administrative enforcement hearings are intended to be informal in nature. Formal rules
of evidence and discovery shall not apply. No later than five (5) business days prior to the
hearing the party that did not request the hearing shall provide the other an electronic
copy of any documents, photographs or other tangible evidence it intends to present at the
hearing and both parties shall provide a list of the witnesses that will testify at the
hearing. If an administrative citation arises from a complaint by a person who is not a city
employee, the complainant’s information shall not be disclosed or released other than the
inclusion of a complainant’s name in a witness list if the complainant will be a witness at
the hearing.
B. Each party shall have the right to be represented by an attorney at their sole cost and
expense. If an attorney will be representing a responsible person at a hearing, notice of
the attorney’s name, telephone number, and email address shall be provided at least two
(2) business days prior to the hearing. If such notice is not given, the hearing may be
continued at the city’s request, and all costs of the continuance may be assessed to the
responsible person.
15
C. No new hearing shall be granted unless the administrative appeals officer determines that
extraordinary circumstances exist that justify a new hearing.
D. Hearings shall be conducted in a manner as to afford the parties due process and in
accordance with the policies and procedures adopted pursuant to Section 2.75.060.
E. The burden to prove any defense shall be upon the party raising such defense.
F. After considering all applicable evidence, testimony, and defenses presented, the
administrative appeals officer shall issue a written administrative enforcement order in
accordance with the requirements and criteria set forth in Section 2.75.200.
2.75.200: ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ORDER:
A. After an administrative enforcement hearing, or the close of evidence, whichever occurs
later, the administrative appeals officer shall, within ten (10) business days, issue a written
administrative enforcement order that includes findings of fact and conclusions of law that
support the administrative appeals officer’s decision and, if applicable, the action required of the
responsible party to satisfy the order. If a decision is rendered at the administrative enforcement
hearing the administrative appeals officer may assign the party who prevailed, if represented by
counsel, the task of preparing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
B. Depending on the nature of the administrative violation at issue, an administrative
appeals officer may issue an administrative enforcement order that orders any of the
following:
1. Dismisses an administrative citation, or dismisses one or more of the administrative
violations associated with the administrative citation.
2. Requires a responsible person to cease and desist from committing or otherwise abate
the conditions causing the administrative violations identified in the administrative
citation;
3. Requires a responsible person to take any necessary corrective action to avoid
committing or to cease committing the administrative violations and establish
deadlines for the same;
3. Imposes civil penalties as set forth in this code;
4. Permits the city to enter property identified in the administrative citation and abate all
violations;
a. Whenever an order of abatement is entered the administrative appeals
officer shall also order the responsible person to pay to the city the actual
costs of the abatement and any administrative costs the city incurs in
performing the abatement.
16
5. Reduces the civil penalties associated with one or more administrative violations,
except that no such reduction shall be ordered when the violation is sustained but the
responsible person has not yet complied with the corrective action affirmed or
ordered by the administrative appeals officer;
6. Establishes specific deadlines for the payment of civil penalties and administrative
costs;
7. Denies, revokes, or suspends a city license, permit or other city approval;
8. Provides for subsequent review hearings as may be necessary to ensure compliance
with an administrative enforcement order;
9. Imposes any other applicable penalties or fees in accordance with the provisions set
forth in this code.
C. In considering a request to modify civil penalties imposed in connection with an
administrative citation an administrative appeals officer may consider any or all of the
following factors:
1. Duration, frequency, and reoccurrence of a violation;
2. Seriousness of a violation;
3. History of a violation;
4. Good faith effort by a responsible person to comply with the administrative citation or,
if applicable, the administrative enforcement order;
5. Prior record of city code violations; and
6. Any other factor appropriate to a just result.
D. Promptly after an administrative enforcement order is issued it shall be sent either by
mail to the address or to the email address identified on the administrative enforcement
hearing request. An administrative enforcement order shall be deemed final on the date it
is sent to such address. The deadline for appeal pursuant to Section 2.75.210.B shall be
extended by 7 days for order sent by mail.
E. If a responsible person fails to comply with the terms set forth in an administrative
enforcement order, the city may use all appropriate legal means to obtain compliance
thereof and recover civil penalties and administrative costs, including attorney’s fees.
2.75.210: APPEAL TO DISTRICT COURT:
A. The city or any responsible person adversely affected by a final administrative
enforcement order may file a petition for review with the Third District Court of Utah. The scope
of review shall be limited to the record before the administrative appeals officer. The court shall
presume the final administrative enforcement order is correct and shall not reweigh the evidence.
The administrative enforcement order may be overturned if it is illegal or arbitrary and
capricious. The administrative enforcement order shall be upheld if it is supported by substantial
evidence.
B. A petition for review shall be barred unless it is filed within thirty (30) days after the
administrative enforcement order is final.
17
C. The recording of the administrative enforcement hearing, any available minutes, evidence
submitted by the parties, orders, and if available, a true and correct transcript of the proceeding,
shall be provided by the city to the district court after the filing of a petition for review.
D. The filing of a petition for review in district court does not stay the final decision of the
administrative appeals officer.
2.75.220: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS:
At any time the recipient of an administrative citation and the city may enter into a stipulated
settlement agreement, which shall be signed by both parties. An executed settlement agreement
shall be binding upon the parties thereto. Execution of such agreement shall constitute a waiver,
as to the merits of the administrative citation, of any right to an initial determination, an
administrative enforcement hearing, and an appeal to district court, to the extent not yet
conducted.
SECTION 3. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 2.84.100. That Section
2.84.100 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
2.84.100: JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY:
The justice court shall have jurisdiction over all matters as provided by Utah Code Title 78A
Chapter 7.
SECTION 4. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.100. That Section
5.02.100 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.02.100: INVESTIGATION POWERS:
A. Investigation: Prior to the issuance of any business license required by this title, the city
may investigate any applicant for such license to ensure such applicant, proposed business, and
proposed place of business comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations. Such
investigation may include entry into the proposed business premises.
B. Documents Production: Unless the business license application is withdrawn by the
applicant, and no business operations are taking place without the required license the city may
compel the production of documents in order to conduct such investigation.
18
C. Continuing Powers: In the event that a license is issued pursuant to this title, the license
holder and place of business shall be subject to ongoing inspections and investigation to
determine continued compliance with the terms and conditions of the license and all applicable
laws, rules and regulations.
SECTION 5. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.115. That Section
5.02.115 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.02.115: TIME LIMITATIONS:
License Issuance Limitations: Unless otherwise specified by a specific ordinance, the city has
thirty (30) days in which to complete its review and approve or deny a license. If a review cannot
be completed within thirty (30) days, a conditional license may be issued to the applicant subject
to completion of the review, verifying the applicant meets all license requirements.
SECTION 6. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.230. That Section
5.02.230 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed in its entirety as follows:
5.02.230: RESERVED
SECTION 7. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.250. That Section
5.02.250 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.02.250: LICENSE; DENIAL, SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION; CONDITIONS:
A. Conditions of Denial, Suspension or Revocation: The licensee shall be responsible for the
operation of the licensed premises in conformance with the ordinances of the city. Any business
license issued by the city may be suspended or revoked, and any application for any business
license or for the renewal of any business license may be denied due to any of the following
arising out of or otherwise related to the application for, or the operation of, the business at issue:
1. The applicant or place of business does not meet the qualifications for a license;
2. Nonpayment of required fees;
3. An incomplete application;
4. Noncompliance with any requirement or condition associated with a city approval
associated with the business (i.e. conditional use permit, development agreement,
variance);
19
5. A violation of or a conviction for violating any ordinance regulating or governing
the business for which said license was granted;
6. A violation of or conviction for violating any other city ordinance or law of the
state which affects the health, welfare or safety of its residents, including, but not limited
to, a public nuisance, and which violation or conviction relates to the business so licensed
or to be licensed;
7. A violation of or conviction for violating an ordinance which violation or
conviction resulted from the operation of the business so licensed;
8. Any material misrepresentation or any fraud perpetrated on the licensing authority
through application for, or operation of, said business; or
9. The applicant or licensee has refused authorized representatives of the city access
to the place of business for the purpose of an inspection or has interfered with such
representatives while in the performance of their duty in making such inspection.
B. Other Grounds Not Precluded: These violations shall not limit, but shall be in addition to,
other grounds for the denial, suspension or revocation of any license as provided for by
ordinance.
C. Theaters; Prior Violations: The foregoing provisions of this section notwithstanding,
nothing herein shall authorize a revocation or suspension of any license of any theater, motion
picture house or concert hall, based on a prior conviction or violation of exhibition or distribution
of obscene material.
SECTION 8. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.260. That Section
5.02.260 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.02.260: LICENSE; DENIAL, SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION; PROCEDURE:
Any suspension, revocation or denial of a license may be appealed pursuant to Chapter 2.75.
Suspension or revocation shall not take effect until the time period for appealing the decision has
expired or, if applicable, a decision is issued as a result of a timely appeal.
SECTION 9. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.02.270. That Section
5.02.270 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.02.270: NEW LICENSE APPLICATION; WAITING PERIOD REQUIRED WHEN:
It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or any agent, manager or operator of any person,
corporation or firm who has had a license suspended, revoked or denied to reapply for or obtain a
license, or operate a business, which has been so suspended, revoked or denied during the time
that said license has been revoked, suspended or denied or for a period of one (1) year from the
20
effective date of said suspension, revocation, or denial if no period of debarment is specified by
the order of suspension, revocation, or denial.
SECTION 10. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Sections 5.02.280, 5.02.290,
and 5.02.310. That Sections 5.02.280, 5.02.290, and 5.02.310 of the Salt Lake City Code are
hereby repealed in their entirety.
5.02.280: HEARING EXAMINERS; APPOINTMENT AND POWERS:
The Mayor may appoint one (1) or more hearing examiners upon the advice and consent of the
City Council, and the Mayor or any hearing examiner shall have power and authority to call,
preside at and conduct hearings to consider the suspension, revocation, denial or approval of
licenses issued by Salt Lake City Corporation, including the power to examine witnesses and
receive evidence, compel the attendance of witnesses, and compel the production of documents.
5.02.290: HEARINGS HELD BEFORE A HEARING EXAMINER:
At the conclusion of any hearing held as provided in section 5.02.260 of this chapter, or its
successor section, the hearing examiner shall issue or adopt written findings of fact and
conclusions of law and an order which is based upon and supported by the evidence presented at
the hearing. Such findings, conclusions and order shall have full force and effect upon issuance,
and shall be binding upon all parties as of the date and time of such issuance. The City and the
licensee or applicant may appeal such findings, conclusions and order to a court of competent
jurisdiction within thirty (30) days of the date on which the hearing examiner issues such
findings, conclusions and order.
5.02.310: SUBPOENAS:
At the request of any party, subpoenas for attendance at any hearing or for production of books,
papers, documents or tangible things shall be issued as provided in title 2, chapter 2.59 of this
Code or its successor chapter.
SECTION 11. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.04.040. That
Section 5.04.040 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.04.040: BUSINESS LICENSING FEES – EXEMPTIONS:
A. Fee Exemptions: No base license fee shall be imposed under this chapter upon any
person:
21
1. Engaged in business for solely religious, charitable, eleemosynary, or other types of
strictly nonprofit purpose who is tax exempt in such activities under the laws of the
United States and the state of Utah;
2. Engaged in a business specifically exempted from municipal taxation and fees under the
laws of the United States and the state of Utah;
3. Engaged in a business operated under the supervision of the Utah State Fair Corporation
and located exclusively at the Utah State Fair Park during the period of the annual Utah
State Fair; or
4. Not maintaining a place of business within the city who has paid a like or similar license
tax or fee to some other taxing unit within the state, and which taxing unit exempts from
its license tax or fee, by reciprocal agreement, businesses domiciled in the city and doing
business in such taxing unit.
B. Disproportionate Fees: The exemptions set forth in subsections A1, A2, and A4 of
this section shall not apply to any disproportionate fees which may be applicable under
section 5.04.070 of this chapter to a person doing business in the city, nor to any other fees or
charges which may be required under this code.
C. Reciprocal Agreement: The mayor may, with approval of the city council, enter
into reciprocal agreements with the proper officials of other taxing units, as may be deemed
equitable and proper in effecting the exemption provided for in subsection A of this section.
Nothing in this section shall preclude the city from reviewing and investigating a business
license application under such a reciprocal agreement, and requiring payment of disproportionate
fees or other fees or taxes imposed by any other provisions of the ordinances of the city, in the
discretion of the city council.
SECTION 12. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.04.116. That
Section 5.04.116 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.04.116: LICENSE; FEE COLLECTION; CIVIL ACTIONS AUTHORIZED:
A. Civil Actions: In all cases where a city ordinance requires that a license be
obtained to carry on or to engage in any business, occupation or calling within the city, and the
fee for such license is fixed by such ordinance, and the fee is not paid at the time or in the
manner provided in said ordinance, a civil action may be brought in the name of Salt Lake City
against the person failing to pay such license fee, in any court of this state having jurisdiction of
such action, to recover the fee. In any case where several or diverse amounts of license fees
remain due and unpaid by any such person, such several amounts of unpaid license fees may be
joined as separate causes of action in the same complaint in such civil actions.
22
B. Administrative Citation: Any unpaid license fees or penalties imposed pursuant to
this title shall be issued in the form of an administrative citation and subject to Chapter 2.75.
C. Other Enforcement: Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or in any
manner interfere with the enforcement of any penalty provision contained in any ordinance of the
city.
SECTION 13. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.08.230. That
Section 5.08.230 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.08.230: APPEAL PROCEDURES:
A. Civil penalties imposed pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to the procedures set
forth in Chapter 2.75.
B. It shall not be a defense to any penalty assessment that: 1) the false alarms were the result
of faulty or malfunctioning equipment; 2) the false alarms were caused by electrical surges; or 3)
the false alarms were caused by the fault of another person during noncriminal incidents.
C. The hearing officer or administrative appeals officer, as applicable, may dismiss the
penalty and release the alarm user from liability thereunder, or may reduce the penalty associated
therewith as he or she shall determine if any of the following affirmative defenses are shown:
1. The false alarm for which the penalty has been assessed did not originate at the
premises of the alarm user who has been assessed the fee;
2. The alarm for which the penalty has been assessed was, in fact, not false, but was
rather the result of an actual or attempted burglary, robbery or other emergency; or
3. The police dispatch office was notified by the permit holder or the alarm company
that the alarm was false prior to the arrival of a peace officer to the subject premises in response
to the false alarm.
SECTION 14. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.09.080. That Section
5.09.080 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.09.080: APPEALS:
A. Except as set forth below, civil penalties and assessed fees imposed pursuant to
this chapter shall be subject to the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.75. An owner may appeal the
assessment of fees to the enforcement official. An appeal fee (see the Salt Lake City consolidated
fee schedule) must accompany the appeal. Appeal fees will be returned to the owner if the appeal
is upheld. The filing of an appeal with the enforcement official stays the assessment of the fee
until the enforcement official makes a final decision. The owner shall file a written appeal to the
23
enforcement official by setting forth the reasons for the appeal within fifteen (15) days after
notice is mailed.
B. An owner to whom a notice to disconnect or deactivate a fire alarm system was
mailed, pursuant to subsection 5.09.070A of this chapter, shall be entitled to appeal the order to
the enforcement official. An appeal fee (see the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule) must
accompany the appeal. Appeal fees will be returned to the owner if the appeal is upheld. An
appeal must be made in writing stating the reason why the order to disconnect or deactivate
should be withdrawn. The appeal shall be made within fifteen (15) days after notice to
disconnect is mailed to the owner. The enforcement official or his or her designee shall review
the facts and circumstances and shall determine whether the owner has shown good cause why
the order should be withdrawn. If the enforcement official affirms the order to disconnect or
deactivate a fire alarm system, the owner shall have fifteen (15) days after the written decision is
served upon the owner to comply with the order. The appeal of an order to disconnect or
deactivate shall suspend the effective date of the order until the appeal has been acted upon by
the enforcement official.
SECTION 15. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 5.14.060.D. That
Subsection 5.14.060.D of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
D. Whenever it is necessary to make an inspection to enforce any provisions of this chapter,
or whenever the city has reasonable cause to believe a violation exists in any building or upon
any premises which makes such building or premises unsafe, dangerous or hazardous, the city's
duly authorized representative may, after making reasonable efforts to obtain permission of the
owner or other person having charge or control of the premises or dwelling unit, enter a
residential property or premises to inspect it or to perform any other duties imposed by this
chapter.
SECTION 16. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.14.120. That Section
5.14.120 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.14.120: ENFORCEMENT:
A. Enforcement of all business licensing standards, except a property’s compliance
with the self-certification standards required by Section 5.14.060, shall be pursuant to Chapters
5.02, 5.04, and 5.88.
B. Self-Certification Standard Enforcement: In addition to any other remedies
authorized by law or in this title, if the notified party fails to repair or secure the property in
question, the city may pursue any one (1) or more of the following additional remedies:
24
1. Notice Of Deficiency: The building services division may record with the Salt
Lake County Recorder's Office a notice of any conditions that violate the self-
certification standards established by the city. The notice shall be mailed to all
notified parties.
2. Criminal Action: Violations of the provisions of self- certification standards
established by the city may be punishable as a Class B misdemeanor upon
conviction.
3. Civil Action: Violations of self-certification standards established by the city may
also be enforced by injunction, mandamus, abatement, civil penalties or any other
appropriate action in law or equity.
C. Civil penalties may be imposed according to the following procedures:
1. Notice Of Violation:
a. If the housing inspector finds that any provision of this chapter is being
violated, the housing inspector shall provide a written notice to the property
owner and to any other person determined to be responsible for such violation.
The written notice shall indicate the nature of the violation and order the
action necessary to correct it. Additional written notices may be provided at
the housing inspector's discretion.
b. The written notice shall state what action the housing inspector intends to take
if the violation is not corrected. The written notice shall include information
regarding the established warning period for the indicated violations and shall
serve to start any warning periods provided in this chapter.
c. Such written notice issued by the housing inspector shall be deemed sufficient
and complete when served upon the person cited:
(1) Personally by the inspector or his or her representative; or by mailing,
postage prepaid, by certified mail or commercial courier addressed to
the person cited at the last known address appearing on the records of
the County Recorder; and
(2) By posting notice on the property where said violation(s) occurs.
d. In cases when delay in enforcement would seriously threaten the effective
enforcement of this chapter, or pose a danger to the public health, safety or
welfare, the housing inspector may seek enforcement without prior written
notice by invoking any of the fines or remedies authorized in this chapter.
e. If the violation remains uncured within five (5) days after the expiration of the
warning period, a second notice of violation shall be delivered by mail,
postage prepaid, addressed to the person cited at the last known address
appearing on the records of the County Recorder. The second notice of
25
violation shall identify the date on which the civil penalties shall begin to
accrue.
2. Amount of Penalty: Civil penalties shall accrue as follows:
a. Violations of the self-certification standards established by the city: $50.00
per violation per day. If more than 10 violations exist, the daily penalties shall
double.
3. Daily Violations: Each day a violation continues after the citation deadline shall
give rise to a separate civil penalty.
4. Compliance: Accumulation of penalties for violations, but not the obligation for
payment of penalties already accrued, shall stop upon correction of the violation.
5. Recurring Violations: In the case where a violation, which had been corrected,
reoccurs within six (6) months of the initial correction, the city will begin
enforcement of said recurring violation and penalties will begin accruing after a
ten (10) day warning period.
6. Appeals:
a. Appeals Contesting the Existence of a Violation:
(1) Appeals contesting the existence of the violation must done in
accordance with Section 18.12.030.
b. Appeals Contesting the Amount of the Penalties Imposed: any person
receiving a notice of violation may appeal the civil fines imposed, but not the
basis therefor (which must be done pursuant to Subsection 5.14.120.B.6.a), in
accordance with Section 18.12.050.
SECTION 17. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.14.130. That Section
5.14.130 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.14.130: REFUSAL TO PERMIT INSPECTIONS:
If a rental dwelling business license holder, or an agent of such business license holder, refuses
to permit the city to conduct an inspection authorized under this chapter, then the city has
adequate grounds to:
A. Revoke the rental dwelling business license that corresponds to the rental dwelling at
issue;
B. Disqualify the rental dwelling at issue from participation in the city's Landlord/Tenant
Initiative pursuant to chapter 5.15 of this title;
26
C. After making reasonable efforts to obtain permission of the owner or other person having
charge or control of the premises or dwelling unit, enter a rental dwelling at issue to inspect it or
to otherwise perform duties imposed by this chapter; and/or
D. Pursue any and all other remedies available to the city.
SECTION 18. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.15.070. That Section
5.15.070 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.15.070: DISQUALIFICATION:
A. License Office Duties: If the License Office disqualifies an applicant from participating
in the Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program or concludes that an owner has violated the provisions
of this chapter or the owner's rental dwelling management agreement with the city, the License
Supervisor shall:
1. Notify the rental dwelling owner of the violation and the basis for such action by
either:
a. Certified mail or commercial courier;
b. Personal service; or
c. Mailing a copy of the notice to the rental dwelling owner and posting a
copy of the same notice at the rental dwelling; and
2. Assess the rental dwelling owner for any disproportionate rental fees
corresponding to such rental dwelling that were reduced under this chapter for the currently
applicable license period.
B. Appeal: A rental dwelling owner or agent who receives a notification and
assessment as provided in subsection A of this section may appeal such action in accordance
with the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.75.
C. No Partial Reduction if Disqualified: If the owner of a rental dwelling is
disqualified from the Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program with respect to a particular rental
dwelling during any portion of the licensing period for which a reduction was provided, the
rental dwelling at issue, shall be disqualified from the program, and the disproportionate rental
fee reduction that corresponds to such rental dwelling shall be disallowed for the entirety of the
term of such rental dwelling business license. The rental dwelling owner shall pay the full
disproportionate rental fee for such rental dwelling for that year.
D. Readmission: After disqualification, the rental dwelling at issue may qualify for
readmission to the Landlord/Tenant Initiative Program in the next licensing year only if the
rental dwelling owner has corrected the problems leading to disqualification and has paid all
amounts due in the prior year.
27
SECTION 19. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.16.100. That Section
5.16.100 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.16.100: AUCTIONEER'S LICENSE; DENIAL OR REVOCATION CONDITIONS:
An auctioneer's license may be revoked by the city license supervisor, or an application for
issuance or renewal of such license may be refused by the city license supervisor.
A. Grounds for Revocation or Denial.
1. The applicant or license holder has committed any of the violations set forth in
Section 5.02.250 of this title, or its successor; or
2. The application of the applicant or license holder contains any false, fraudulent or
misleading material statements; or
3. The applicant or license holder has made any false, fraudulent or misleading
material statement in the course of conducting an auction sale of, or in offering for sale at
auction, any real or personal property (goods, wares or merchandise) in the city; or
4. The applicant or license holder has perpetrated a fraud upon any person, whether
or not such fraud was perpetrated in the conduct of an auction in the city; or
5. The applicant or license holder has violated any of the statutes of the state relating
to auctions or auctioneers; or
6. The applicant or license holder has conducted an auction sale in the city or offered
for sale at an auction in the city, any real or personal property (goods, wares or
merchandise) in an unlawful manner, or in such a manner as to constitute a breach of the
peace or a menace to the health, safety or general welfare of the public.
B. Such determination may be appealed in accordance with Chapter 2.75.
SECTION 20. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.16.110. That
Section 5.16.110 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed in its entirety.
5.16.110: RESERVED
SECTION 21. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.40.120. That Section
5.40.120 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
28
5.40.120: LICENSE; REVOCATION CONDITIONS:
Any license granted or extended under this chapter may be revoked or suspended pursuant to the
procedures provided in Chapter 5.02 for any of the following reasons:
A. Any misrepresentation made in obtaining a license;
B. A conviction of, or any alleged but as yet unresolved charge that licensee has committed
a crime involving moral turpitude;
C. The violation of any provision of this chapter;
D. A showing of any evidence which provides reasonable grounds to believe that the
licensee has committed or aided in the preparation for or allowed his records, tools, equipment,
facilities or supplies to be used for the commission of any crime.
SECTION 22. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.040. That Section 5.51.040
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed.
5.51.040: RESERVED
SECTION 23. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.050. That Section 5.51.050
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed.
5.51.050: RESERVED
SECTION 24. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.060. That Section 5.51.060
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed.
5.51.060: RESERVED
SECTION 25. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.070. That Section 5.51.070
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed.
5.51.070: RESERVED
29
SECTION 26. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.080. That Section 5.51.080
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed.
5.51.080: RESERVED
SECTION 27. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.51.090. That Section 5.51.090
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed.
5.51.090: RESERVED
SECTION 28. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.61.380. That Section
5.61.380 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.61.380: APPEAL PROCEDURES:
If the license is denied or approved with qualifications, or if a notice of suspension, revocation or
citation of a civil fine is imposed, the applicant or licensee may challenge that adverse action
pursuant to the processes set forth in Chapter 2.75.
SECTION 29. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.63.065. That Section
5.63.065 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.63.065: DRIVER'S QUALIFICATIONS:
A. Except as hereinafter set forth, no license or renewal of a pedicab driver license shall be
issued to any of the following persons:
1. Any person under the age of eighteen (18) years;
2. Any person who is currently required to register with the sex and kidnap offender registry
pursuant to title 77, chapter 41 of the Utah Code Annotated, or its successor;
3. Any person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, narcotic or
dangerous drugs, a felony conviction for an offense against a person or property, unless a
period of not less than five (5) years shall have elapsed since the date of conviction or the
date of release from confinement for such offense, whichever is later;
4. Any person who has been convicted of driving a vehicle recklessly within the five (5)
years immediately preceding application for a license;
30
5. Any person who has been convicted of driving a vehicle while under the influence of
alcohol or a controlled substance, or of being in or about a vehicle while under the
influence of alcohol or a controlled substance with the intent of driving such vehicle,
within the five (5) years immediately preceding application for a license;
6. Any person who has been convicted of two (2) or more felonies.
SECTION 30. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.63.070. That Section
5.63.070 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.63.070: APPEAL:
Any license that is suspended, revoked, or associated application rejected, the applicant/licensee
shall be entitled to appeal such determination in accordance with Chapter 2.75.
SECTION 31. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.64.750. That Section
5.64.750 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.64.750: SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION OF LICENSE:
A. In addition to any penalties that may be imposed, any license issued under this article
may be suspended or revoked for any of the following reasons:
1. Fraud, misrepresentation, or knowingly false statement contained in the application
for the license;
2. Fraud, misrepresentation, or knowingly false statement in the course of carrying on
the business of vending;
3. Conducting the business of vending in any manner contrary to the conditions of the
license;
4. Conducting the business of vending in such a manner as to create a public nuisance;
cause a breach of the peace; constitute a danger to the public health, safety, welfare,
or morals; or interfere with the rights of property owners; or
5. Cancellation of Utah Department of Agriculture authorization, or of the required
authorization of any successor agency, for a food or beverage vending unit due to
uncorrected health or sanitation violations.
B. Any suspension of revocation of a license under this article shall be subject to
Chapters 5.02 and 2.75.
31
C. If the city revokes a vending license or permit, the fee already paid for the license
or permit shall be forfeited. A person whose license or permit has been revoked under this
section may not apply for a new license for a period of one year from the date that the revocation
took effect.
SECTION 32. Repealing Salt Lake City Code Section 5.64.760. That Section 5.64.760
of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed.
5.64.760: RESERVED
SECTION 33. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.65.190. That Section
5.65.190 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.65.190: DENIAL, SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF BUSINESS LICENSE:
A. The Business License Administrator may revoke or suspend the business license
or deny renewal thereof, of any person to conduct business on the sidewalks of Salt Lake City if
he/she finds:
1. That such person has violated or failed to meet any of the provisions of this
chapter;
2. That there are grounds for denial, suspension or revocation as set forth in
section 5.02.250 of this title, or its successor section, or in any other city
ordinance or State or Federal law or regulation;
3. That such person has been convicted within the last seven (7) years of any crime
involving moral turpitude, narcotic or dangerous drugs, or offenses against a
person or property;
4. Any required license or permit has been suspended, revoked or canceled; or
5. The permittee does not have a currently effective insurance policy in the
minimum amount provided in this chapter; or
6. That the permittee has abandoned the use of the permit operating location for the
conducting of business. The failure of a permittee to vend from a vending cart
within the permittee's permit operating location for thirty (30) continuous
calendar days or more, except during the period of December, January, and
February, shall constitute abandonment.
B. A denial, revocation, or suspension of a license shall be conducted pursuant to the
procedures set forth in Chapter 5.02.
32
SECTION 34. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.71.010. That Section
5.71.010 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.71.010: DEFINITIONS:
The following words and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings defined
and set forth in this section:
AIRPORT SHARED RIDE SERVICE: Ground transportation provided by an authorized ground
transportation business contracted through the department of airports to provide on demand
shared ride service to and from the Salt Lake City International Airport.
AIRPORT SHARED RIDE VEHICLE: Any authorized ground transportation vehicle operating
under contract with the department of airports to provide airport shared ride service to and from
the Salt Lake City International Airport.
APPLICANT: An individual who has submitted an application to the department to obtain a
ground transportation vehicle operator's badge pursuant to article VII of this chapter.
AUTHORIZED GROUND TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS: Any business operating any
ground transportation vehicle, which has a current, valid business license as required by the city
and which:
A. Registers the business in accordance with the requirements established by the
department, and
B. Is current with all fees or charges imposed by the department and city.
AUTOMOBILE: Any motor vehicle with passenger seating for five (5) persons or less, not
including the driver.
BUS: Any licensed motor vehicle operated on the streets and highways for hire on a scheduled or
nonscheduled basis with a seating capacity of twenty five (25) or more passengers, not including
the driver.
BUSINESS: A voluntary association legally formed and organized to carry on a business in Utah
in the legal name of the association, including, without limitation, a corporation, limited liability
company, partnership, or sole proprietorship.
BUSINESS LICENSING OFFICE: The department of finance of Salt Lake City Corporation, or
its successor.
CERTIFICATE: A certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the city.
CIVIL NOTICE: A written notice of a ground transportation violation as provided under this
chapter.
33
COMMENT FORM OR FORM: The form described in section 5.71.270 of this chapter, or its
successor.
COURTESY VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle regularly operated on Salt Lake City streets for
transportation of customers and/or baggage without making a specific separate charge to the
passenger for such transportation.
DEPARTMENT: The Salt Lake City Department of Airports or such other city department or
division as may be designated by the mayor to have responsibility for the enforcement of this
chapter.
DEPARTMENT AUTOMATED VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION (AVI) TAG: An electronic
transponder used to identify vehicles and provide the department with vehicle data and billing
information.
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: The director of the department designated by the mayor to have
responsibility for the enforcement of this chapter or the authorized designee of such director.
DEPARTMENT INSPECTION: An inspection of a ground transportation vehicle by the
department to verify that the vehicle meets the standards set by the department director,
department rules and regulations, applicable contracts, and applicable city ordinances, including,
without limitation, the exterior and interior of the vehicle and all associated vehicle licensing,
safety, and insurance requirements.
DEPARTMENT INSPECTION SEAL: A sticker or seal issued by the department to signify that
a ground transportation vehicle has passed the required department inspection. These department
inspection seals are nontransferable and no ground transportation vehicle may be operated
without such seal.
DEPARTMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS: Rules and regulations developed and adopted
by the department director to govern commercial ground transportation operations within the
city.
FIXED SCHEDULE: Ground transportation service operating on a regular time schedule
previously announced as to time of departure and arrival between definitely established and
previously announced points along definitely established and previously announced routes
regardless of whether passengers or freight are to be carried.
GROUND TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS: Any business operating any ground transportation
vehicle.
GROUND TRANSPORTATION SERVICE: The transportation of passengers by a ground
transportation business.
GROUND TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle used for the transportation of
persons using Salt Lake City streets for commercial purposes, regardless of whether a fee or fare
is collected.
HOLDER: A person to whom a certificate of public convenience and necessity has been issued.
34
HOTEL VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle regularly operated by a ground transportation business
under contract to or directly by a motel, hotel, or other lodging business, to provide
transportation of customers and/or baggage for the contracted establishment for which
transportation the customer is charged a separate fee or fare, and which is subject to a contract
filed with the department providing for operating the vehicle.
LIMOUSINE: Any vehicle described by its manufacturer or aftermarket manufacturer as a
limousine or a luxury vehicle, with a driver furnished, who is dressed in professional business
attire or a chauffeur's uniform.
MINIBUS: Any motor vehicle with a passenger seating capacity of sixteen (16) to twenty four
(24) persons, not including the driver.
NAMED PARTY: The driver, vehicle owner, or authorized ground transportation business
named in a civil notice issued by the city.
ON DEMAND AIRPORT SERVICE OR ON DEMAND SERVICE: Transportation provided by
an authorized ground transportation business which is not "scheduled service" or "prearranged
service" as defined in this section.
OPERATOR: Persons engaged in the ground transportation business.
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: Those persons who are not acutely ill, who do not require the
services of an ambulance, and who need or desire special transportation equipment or
accommodation for physical or mental infirmities.
PREARRANGED SERVICE: Transportation provided by an authorized ground transportation
business from points within the city to destinations within the city, or beyond, for which the
authorized ground transportation business providing such transportation has recorded the name
or description of prospective passenger and the date and time of the request for transportation at
least thirty (30) minutes prior to the transporting of the passenger by such vehicle.
SCHEDULED SERVICE: Transportation provided by an authorized ground transportation
business on a fixed schedule posted with and approved by the department in advance of such
transportation.
SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle for hire, other than an airport
shared ride vehicle, ambulance, or taxicab, which vehicle is designed, equipped, and used for the
transportation of persons with disabilities.
SPECIALTY VEHICLES: Any vehicles that are unique in their design, or built for a specific
purpose, including, but are not limited to, special conversion vehicles and classic or collector
automobiles, but excluding special transportation vehicles.
STARTER: A person appointed by and representing a ground transportation business who is
responsible for managing the coordination of vehicles and passenger transportation for that
business.
TAXI STAND: A public place alongside the curb of a street, or elsewhere in the city, which has
been designated by the mayor or the mayor's designee as reserved for the use of taxicabs
35
available for hire by passengers, including places otherwise marked as freight zones or other
parking restricted zones if designated for use of taxicabs during specified times.
TAXICAB: A motor vehicle used in the on demand, for hire transportation of passengers or
baggage over public streets and not operated over a fixed route or upon a fixed schedule, but
which is subject for contract hire by persons desiring special trips from one point to another, as
provided under chapter 5.72 of this title, or its successor chapter, and authorized to operate in
Salt Lake City by contract with the department.
TERMINAL OF TRANSPORTATION: A facility or location having the primary purpose of
facilitating ground transportation services, such as, but not limited to, the Salt Lake City
Intermodal Hub.
TRAILER: A wheeled vehicle designed to be pulled by a motor vehicle for the transportation of
freight, luggage, or other items.
VAN: Any licensed motor vehicle other than those designated as a limousine with a passenger
seating capacity of six (6) to twelve (12), not including the driver.
SECTION 35. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 5.71.300.B. That
Subsection 5.71.300.B of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.71.300: CIVIL PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT:
B. The department may revoke, suspend, or deny the application for or a renewal of
an operator's badge, department automated vehicle identification tag or department inspection
seal for violations of any provision of this title, department rules and regulations, or other
applicable law. Such action may be appealed in accordance with Chapter 2.75.
SECTION 36. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.71.310. That Section
5.71.310 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.71.310: ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES; CIVIL NOTICE OF GROUND
TRANSPORTATION VIOLATION:
Civil notices under this chapter may be contested pursuant to the procedures and processes
governing the adjudication of civil notices of violation as set forth in Chapter 2.75 or its
successor.
36
SECTION 37. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.71.310. That Section
5.71.310 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed in its entirety:
5.71.320: EXPEDITED APPEAL OF EXCLUSION:
Any named party who is excluded from pursuing commercial activities under this chapter , and
has not had a hearing before the Ground Transportation Appeal Committee regarding such
exclusion as provided for in this chapter, may request an expedited appeal of the action that
resulted in such exclusion. Such appeal shall be requested in writing by the party so excluded to
the department. The department shall promptly investigate the facts relating to such exclusion. If
the evidence indicates such exclusion is improper under this chapter, the Department Director
may reverse the action that resulted in such exclusion. If the Department Director does not
reverse such action, the action resulting in such exclusion shall be heard and determined by the
Ground Transportation Appeal Committee in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. If a
preponderance of the evidence indicates such exclusion is proper under this chapter the Ground
Transportation Appeal Committee shall uphold such exclusion.
SECTION 38. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.72.005. That Section
5.72.005 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.72.005: DEFINITIONS:
The following words and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings defined
and set forth in this section:
BUSINESS: A voluntary association legally formed and organized to carry on a business in Utah
in the legal name of the association, including, without limitation, a corporation, limited liability
company, partnership, or sole proprietorship.
CERTIFICATE: A certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the city.
CITY: The governmental institution and landmass contained within the boundaries of Salt Lake
City, Utah.
CIVIL NOTICE: A written notice of a ground transportation violation as provided under this
chapter.
CLEARED: That condition of a taximeter when it is inoperative with respect to all fare
registration and all cumulative fare and extras charges have been set to zero dollars ($0.00).
CONCESSIONAIRE: A person or entity with whom the department of airports has contracted to
provide taxicab services.
37
DEPARTMENT: The Salt Lake City Department of Airports or such other city department or
division as may be designated by the mayor to have responsibility for the enforcement of this
chapter.
DEPARTMENT CONTRACT: A valid, existing, and current contract negotiated and approved
by the department for providing taxicab or other services within the corporate boundaries of Salt
Lake City, including the airport.
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: The director of the department designated by the mayor to have
responsibility for the enforcement of this chapter or the authorized designee of such director.
DEPARTMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS: Rules and regulations developed and adopted
by the department director to govern ground transportation service and businesses within the
city.
EXTRAS: Charges to be paid by a customer or passenger in addition to the fare.
FACE: That side of a taximeter upon which passenger or customer charges for hire of a taxicab
are indicated.
FARE: That portion of the charge for hire of a taxicab which is automatically calculated by the
taximeter through the operation of the mileage and time mechanism.
HAIL A TAXICAB: The act of a person to call out for, or to signal for, an in service taxicab that
is not already engaged in transport of passengers to respond to the person's location for hiring
and transport of persons or property.
HIRED: The button on the face of a taximeter, which when activated places the taximeter in
operation, signifying the start of a billing process for the person(s) engaging the use of the
taxicab.
IN SERVICE: A taxicab that is in use on the streets of the city, with a driver, and available for
the transportation of passengers for hire.
PERSON: An individual, a corporation or other legal entity, a partnership, and any incorporated
association.
TAXI STAND: A public place alongside the curb of a street, or elsewhere in the city, which has
been designated by the mayor or the mayor's designee as reserved for the use of taxicabs
available for hire by passengers, including places otherwise marked as freight zones or other
parking restricted zones if designated for use of taxicabs during specified times.
TAXICAB: A motor vehicle with a seating capacity of five (5) passengers or less, not including
the driver, or a van with a passenger seating capacity of six (6) to twelve (12), not including the
driver, used in the on demand, for hire transportation of passengers or baggage over the public
streets and not operated over a fixed route or upon a fixed schedule, but which is subject for
contract hire by persons desiring special trips from one point to another and authorized to operate
in Salt Lake City by contract with the department.
TAXIMETER: A meter instrument or electronic device attached to a taxicab which measures
mileage by the distance driven and the waiting time upon which the fare is based, and which
38
automatically calculates, at a predetermined rate or rates, and registers, the charge for hire of a
taxicab.
WAITING TIME: The time when a taxicab is not in motion, from the time of hiring by a
passenger to the time of discharge of passenger(s).
SECTION 39. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 5.72.855.B. That
Subsection 5.72.855.B of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
B. The department may revoke, suspend, or deny renewal of an operator's badge,
department automated vehicle identification tag or department inspection seal for violations of
any provision of this title, department rules and regulations, or other applicable law. Such action
may be appealed in accordance with Chapter 2.75.
SECTION 40. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.72.890. That Section
5.72.890 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.72.890: ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES; CIVIL NOTICE OF GROUND
TRANSPORTATION VIOLATION:
Civil notices under this chapter may be contested pursuant to the procedures and processes
governing the adjudication of civil notices of violation as set forth in Chapter 2.75 or its
successor.
SECTION 41. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.72.900. That Section
5.72.900 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby repealed as follows:
5.72.900: EXPEDITED APPEAL OF EXCLUSION:
Any named party who is excluded from pursuing commercial activities under this chapter, and
has not had a hearing before the Ground Transportation Appeal Committee regarding such
exclusion as provided for in this chapter, such party may request an expedited appeal of the
action that resulted in such exclusion. Such appeal shall be requested in writing by the party so
excluded to the department. The department shall promptly investigate the facts relating to such
exclusion. If the evidence indicates such exclusion is improper under this chapter, the
Department Director may reverse the action that resulted in such exclusion. If the Department
Director does not reverse such action, the action resulting in such exclusion shall be heard and
determined by the Ground Transportation Appeal Committee in accordance with the provisions
39
of this chapter. If a preponderance of the evidence indicates such exclusion is proper under this
chapter the Ground Transportation Appeal Committee shall uphold such exclusion.
SECTION 42. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.74.170. That Section
5.74.170 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.74.170: LICENSE; REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION; CONDITIONS:
A. The licensee shall be responsible for the operation of the licensed premises in
conformance with this code. The city may revoke or suspend the license or licenses covering the
businesses conducted on such premises, regardless of the ownership thereof, for the following
violations:
1. A violation or conviction of Utah Code section 76-9-301.8, 76-9-702, or 76-10-1206;
2. A violation of any provision set forth in this chapter;
3. A violation or conviction of any ordinance referred to in
section 5.74.040 or 5.74.070 of this chapter; or a violation or conviction of
section 5.28.060 of this title or section 11.16.100 of this code, or their successors;
4. Violations or convictions of any material misrepresentation, or for any fraud
perpetrated on the licensing authority through application or operation of such
business;
5. A violation of any law of the state, or ordinance of the city which affects the health,
welfare and safety of its residents, and which violation occurred as a part of the main
business activity licensed under this chapter and not incidental thereto;
6. A violation or conviction of showing motion pictures for which the establishment is
not properly licensed as required by this chapter.
B. The foregoing provisions of this section, or its successor, notwithstanding,
nothing herein shall authorize a revocation or suspension of any license of any theater, motion
picture house or concert hall based on a prior conviction or violation of exhibiting or distributing
obscene material.
SECTION 43. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.74.180. That Section
5.74.180 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.74.180: LICENSE; SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION; PROCEDURES:
40
Any suspension or revocation of a license pursuant to this chapter shall be conducted as provided
in Chapter 5.02 of this title or its successor. Any decision to revoke or suspend a license shall be
stayed until the time period for appealing the decision has expired or a decision on any appeal is
issued pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2.75.
SECTION 44. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.88.030. That Section
5.88.030 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.88.030: ENFORCEMENT INVOLVING NOTICES OF VIOLATION:
A. Notices of violation shall be adjudicated as civil violations in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Chapter 2.75.
B. If the alleged ordinance violation involves an ordinance for which a more specific
enforcement provision is set forth therein, then the more specific enforcement provisions and
processes set forth in the chapter that corresponds to the violation shall supersede the provisions
of this section.
SECTION 45. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 5.88.040. That Section
5.88.040 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
5.88.040: PENALTIES FOR CIVIL VIOLATIONS:
A. The following penalties shall be imposed where a notice of violation is issued for
a violation of the city ordinances set forth in this title:
1. Where a notice of violation has been issued for a first violation of a city
ordinance, such notice of violation shall constitute a written warning.
2. Where a notice of violation has been issued for a second violation of a city
ordinance, the recipient of such notice of violation shall pay a civil penalty of two
hundred fifty dollars ($250.00).
3. Where a notice of violation has been issued for a third violation of a city
ordinance, the recipient of such notice of violation shall pay a civil penalty of five
hundred dollars ($500.00).
4. Where a notice of violation has been issued for a fourth or subsequent violation of
a city ordinance, the recipient of such notice of violation shall:
a. Pay a civil penalty of five hundred dollars ($500.00); and
41
b. Shall be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year from the date on
which the notice of violation was issued.
5. If, during the period of probation specified in subsection A4b of this section, a
notice of violation is issued for a violation of the same ordinance that resulted in
such probation, then:
a. The recipient of such notice of violation shall pay a civil penalty of five
hundred dollars ($500.00);
b. The business license of the recipient of such notice of violation shall be
revoked; and
c. The recipient of such notice of violation may not reapply for a new business
license for at least six (6) months from the date of revocation.
B. Any reference to second, third, fourth, and subsequent violations refers to repeat
violations of the same city ordinance that occur within a twenty four (24) month period. Unless a
specified citation interval is provided by ordinance related to the specific violation or license at
issue, then citations for ongoing violations may be issued every fifteen (15) calendar days.
C. The city may not revoke a business license pursuant to subsection A5b of this
section without satisfying the due process requirements set forth in Section 5.02.250.
D. If the alleged ordinance violation involves an ordinance for which a more specific
enforcement provision or penalty is set forth therein, then the more specific enforcement
provisions, processes, and penalties set forth in the chapter that corresponds to the violation shall
supersede the provisions of this section.
SECTION 46. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 8.04.020. That Section
8.04.020 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
8.04.020: ANIMAL SERVICES:
Animal services may be provided through a legally executed agreement, which includes the
authority and power to enforce this title. Alternatively, the city may elect to provide its own
animal services without entering into a contract with an outside provider. In the event that animal
control services are provided by another political subdivision, the duly enacted ordinances and
regulations of that political subdivision shall apply and supersede the requirements of this Title.
SECTION 47. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 8.15.025. That Section
8.15.025 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows:
42
8.15.025: NOTICES OF VIOLATION:
A. Notices of violations shall be adjudicated as civil violations in the small claims court in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.75.
SECTION 48. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 9.08.115.B. That
Subsection 9.08.115.B of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as
follows:
B. Any violation of this chapter shall constitute a civil violation and shall be handled as
provided by Chapter 2.75. Civil penalties shall be imposed as follows:
Section Of This Chapte Penalt
9.08.030G $50.00 per violatio
9.08.090 and 9.08.095 $25.00 for the first citation
$50.00 for the second citation within 6
months of the first citation
$100.00 for the third citation within 6 months
of the first citatio
SECTION 49. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 11.14.050. That Section
11.14.050 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
11.14.050: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS:
Service fees and costs imposed pursuant to this chapter shall be adjudicated as civil violations in
accordance with Chapter 2.75.
SECTION 50. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 12.24.016. That Section
12.24.016 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
12.24.016: RESERVED
SECTION 51. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 12.24.018. That Section
12.24.018 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
43
12.24.018: RESERVED
SECTION 52. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 12.24.018. That Section
12.56.570 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
12.56.570: UNAUTHORIZED USE OF STREETS; APPEAL PROCEDURES:
A. Any person having received a citation as to unauthorized use of streets, or the owner of
any vehicle employed in such use, may appeal such notice pursuant to the procedures set forth in
Chapter 2.75.
B. If the hearing officer or administrative appeals officer, as applicable, finds that an
unauthorized use occurred but one or more of the defenses set forth in this section is applicable,
they may dismiss the notice of unauthorized use and release the owner or driver from liability
thereunder. Such defenses are:
1. At the time of the receipt of the notice, possession of the subject vehicle had been
acquired by a third party in violation of the criminal laws of the State;
2. If the notice of unauthorized use of streets alleges a violation of any ordinance
pertaining to a parking meter, such meter was mechanically malfunctioning to the
extent that its reliability is questionable;
3. Compliance with the subject ordinances would have presented an imminent and
irreparable injury to persons or property;
4. Citations for overtime parking in metered or time restricted zones received by a city
employee or guest while on official Salt Lake City business will be dismissed upon
written request from the applicable department director or designee on official
letterhead or by electronic mail. The request must be made within ten (10) days of
receipt of the citation and must include a brief description of the reason for the
request, and be submitted to the Salt Lake City Corporation director of revenue
operations. Parking violations other than overtime parking and meter violations will
not be dismissed in this manner;
5. Unlimited time parking by exempt vehicles will be allowed at city meters and time
restricted locations. In order to qualify, the exempt vehicle must either be a marked
official vehicle pursuant to Section 12.56.590, or it must be included in the city’s
exempt database. Requests for dismissals of other parking violations may be
considered and should be submitted to the Salt Lake City Corporation director of
revenue operations;
6. If the owner of the vehicle is deceased but was living when the ticket was issued;
7. If the vehicle was sold by a third party and the citation was issued prior to the sale,
provided the sale is reported to the DMV and the bill of sale is submitted within
twenty (20) days of receipt of the parking citation.
44
C. If the hearing officer or administrative appeals officer, as applicable, finds that an
unauthorized use occurred but one or more of the defenses set forth in this section is applicable,
they may reduce the penalty associated therewith, but in no event shall such penalty be reduced
below the sum of ten dollars ($10.00). Such defenses are:
1. At the time of receipt of the notice, possession of the subject vehicle had been
acquired by another party pursuant to a written lease agreement or similar written
agreement;
2. The subject vehicle was mechanically incapable of being moved from such location;
provided, however, such defense shall not apply to any vehicle which remains at such
location in excess of six (6) hours;
3. Any markings, signs or other indicia of parking use regulation were not clearly visible
or comprehensible;
4. At the time of the notice of violation a responsible person receiving such notice of
violation had, but failed to properly display, a special disability group license plate or
placard that was valid and relevant to the violation for which the citation was issued;
5. At the time a citation issued for failure to display a residential parking permit a valid
residential parking permit existed, but such permit was not properly displayed;
6. Such other mitigating circumstances as have been approved by the parking civil
manager.
D. If the penalty imposed pursuant to this chapter remains unsatisfied after forty (40) days
from the receipt of the citation, the city may use such lawful means as are available to collect
such penalty, including costs. Such collection efforts shall be stayed while an appeal is pending
before a hearing officer or administrative appeals officer pursuant to Chapter 2.75.
SECTION 53. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 14.20.110. That Section
14.20.110 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
14.20.110: FAILURE TO REMOVE HAIL, SNOW, ICE AND SLEET; CIVIL
PENALTIES:
A. Any owner, occupant, lessor, or agent of property abutting a paved city sidewalk who
fails to comply with Section 14.20.070 of this chapter commits a civil violation. Such violation
shall be handled in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.75, or its successor.
B. The civil penalty for violation of this section shall be as set forth below:
1. For any property with street front footage of two hundred feet (200') or less:
a. Fifty dollars ($50.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet is not
removed from sidewalks within twenty four (24) hours;
45
b. Seventy five dollars ($75.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet is not
removed from sidewalks within forty eight (48) hours; and
c. One hundred dollars ($100.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet is
not removed from sidewalks within seventy two (72) hours.
2. For any property with street front footage of more than two hundred feet (200'):
a. One hundred dollars ($100.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet is
not removed from sidewalks within twenty four (24) hours;
b. One hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet
is not removed from sidewalks within forty eight (48) hours; and
c. Two hundred dollars ($200.00) for each day hail, snow, ice or sleet is
not removed from sidewalks within seventy two (72) hours.
SECTION 54. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 14.32.625. That Section
14.32.625 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
14.32.625: APPEAL OF SUSPENSION, REVOCATION, OR STOP ORDER:
Any suspension or revocation or stop order by the city engineer may be appealed in accordance
with the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.75.
SECTION 55. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 16.60.090. That Section
16.60.090 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
16.60.090: DEFINITIONS:
The following words and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings defined
and set forth in this section:
AIRPORT SHARED RIDE SERVICE: Ground transportation provided by an authorized ground
transportation business contracted through the department of airports to provide on demand
shared ride service to and from the Salt Lake City International Airport.
AIRPORT SHARED RIDE VEHICLE: Any authorized ground transportation vehicle operating
under contract with the department of airports to provide airport shared ride service.
AUTHORIZED GROUND TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS: Any business operating any
ground transportation vehicle, which has a current, valid business license as required by the city
and which:
A. Registers the business in accordance with the requirements established by the department,
and
46
B. Is current with all fees or charges imposed by the department or city.
AUTOMOBILE: Any motor vehicle with passenger seating for five (5) persons or less not
including the driver.
BUS: Any motor vehicle with a seating capacity of twenty five (25) passengers or more, not
including the driver.
BUSINESS: A voluntary association legally formed and organized to carry on a business in Utah
in the legal name of the association, including, without limitation, a corporation, limited liability
company, partnership, or sole proprietorship.
CIVIL NOTICE: The written notice of a ground transportation violation.
COURTESY VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle regularly operated on Salt Lake City streets for
transportation of customers and/or baggage without making a specific separate charge to the
passenger for such transportation.
DEPARTMENT: The Salt Lake City Department of Airports.
DEPARTMENT AUTOMATED VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION (AVI) TAG: An electronic
transponder used to identify vehicles and provide the department with vehicle data and billing
information.
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR: The director of the Salt Lake City Department of Airports.
DEPARTMENT INSPECTION SEAL: A sticker or seal issued by the department to signify that
a ground transportation vehicle has passed the required department inspection. These department
inspection seals are nontransferable and no ground transportation vehicle may be operated
without such seal.
DEPARTMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS: Rules and regulations developed and adopted
by the department director to govern ground transportation service and businesses at the airport.
FIXED SCHEDULE: Ground transportation service operating on a regular time schedule
previously announced as to time of departure and arrival between the airport and definitely
established and previously announced points along definitely established and previously
announced routes regardless of whether there are passengers or freight to be carried.
GROUND TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS: Any business operating any ground transportation
vehicle.
GROUND TRANSPORTATION SERVICE: The transportation of passengers by a ground
transportation business.
GROUND TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle used for the transportation of
persons using Salt Lake City streets for commercial purposes regardless of whether a fee or fare
is collected.
HOTEL VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle regularly operated by a ground transportation business
under contract to or directly by a motel, hotel, or other lodging business to provide transportation
of customers and/or baggage for the contracted establishment, for which transportation the
47
customer is charged a separate fee or fare, and which is subject to a contract filed with the
department providing for operating the vehicle.
LIMOUSINE: Any vehicle described by its manufacturer or aftermarket manufacturer as a
limousine or a luxury vehicle, with a driver furnished, who is dressed in professional business
attire or a chauffeur's uniform.
MINIBUS: Any motor vehicle with a seating capacity of sixteen (16) to twenty four (24)
passengers, not including the driver.
ON DEMAND AIRPORT SERVICE OR ON DEMAND SERVICE: Transportation provided by
an authorized ground transportation business which is not "scheduled service" or "prearranged
service from the airport" as defined in this section.
OPERATOR: Persons engaged in the ground transportation business.
PREARRANGED SERVICE FROM THE AIRPORT: Transportation from the airport to points
within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City provided by an authorized ground transportation
business which is contracted for between such business and the person to be transported, or by an
agent of the person, prior to the arrival of the person at the Salt Lake City International Airport.
Prearranged service from the airport shall include airport ground transportation contracted for by
an airline company on behalf of its own passengers whose regular air travel may have been
disrupted in some manner. An agent may include a travel agent, family member, employee,
business or meeting planner, but excludes an authorized ground transportation business.
SCHEDULED SERVICE: Transportation provided by an authorized ground transportation
business on a fixed schedule posted with the department in advance of such transportation.
TAXI STAND: A public place alongside the curb of a street, or elsewhere in the city, which has
been designated by the mayor or the mayor's designee as reserved for the use of taxicabs
available for hire by passengers, including places otherwise marked as freight zones or other
parking restricted zones if designated for use of taxicabs during specified times.
TAXICAB: A motor vehicle used in the on demand for hire transportation of passengers or
baggage over the public streets and not operated over a fixed route or upon a fixed schedule, but
which is subject for contract hire by persons desiring special trips from one point to another, as
provided under title 5, chapter 5.72 of this code, or its successor chapter, and authorized to
operate in Salt Lake City by contract with the department.
VAN: Any licensed motor vehicle other than those designated as a limousine with a passenger
seating capacity of six (6) to twelve (12), not including the driver.
SECTION 56. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 16.64.030. That Section
16.64.030 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
16.64.030: CIVIL PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT:
48
A. Any person or entity in violation of this title, department rules and regulations, or
other applicable law is subject to civil penalties and any other lawful action as may be taken by
the Department Director to ensure the safe and effective operations of the airport.
B. The city may revoke, suspend, or deny renewal of a city business license to
operate a business for violation of any provision of this title, department rules and regulations, or
other applicable law as provided under Chapter 5.02.
C. The department may revoke, suspend or deny renewal of an operator's badge,
department automated vehicle identification tag, or department inspection seal for violation of
any provision of this title, department rules and regulations, or other applicable law. Such action
may be appealed in accordance with Chapter 2.75.
SECTION 57. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 16.64.050. That Section
16.64.050 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
16.64.050: ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES; CIVIL NOTICE OF GROUND
TRANSPORTATION VIOLATION:
Civil notices under this chapter may be contested as provided in Chapter 2.75, or its successor.
SECTION 58. Repealing the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 16.64.060. That Section
16.64.060 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be repealed as follows:
16.64.060: EXPEDITED APPEAL OF EXCLUSION:
Any named party who is excluded from pursuing commercial activities under this chapter, and
has not had a hearing before an Appeal Committee regarding such exclusion as provided for in
this chapter, may request an expedited appeal of the action that resulted in such exclusion. Such
appeal shall be requested in writing by the party so excluded to the department. The department
shall promptly investigate the facts relating to such exclusion. If the evidence indicates such
exclusion is improper under this chapter, the Department Director may reverse the action that
resulted in such exclusion. If the Department Director does not reverse such action, the action
resulting in such exclusion shall be heard and determined by an Appeal Committee in accordance
with the provisions of this chapter. If a preponderance of the evidence indicates such exclusion is
proper under this chapter the Appeal Hearing Committee shall uphold such exclusion.
SECTION 59. Amending the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule. That the Salt
Lake City consolidated fee schedule shall be, and hereby is, amended, in pertinent part, to reflect
49
the fees set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and that a copy of the amended Salt Lake City
consolidated fee schedule shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website.
SECTION 60. Effective Date. That this ordinance shall become effective on the date of
publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _______ day of
________________, 2025.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________________.
Mayor’s Action: _____Approved. _____Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _______ of 2025.
Published: ____________________.
Ordinance Establishing Uniform Administrative Hearing Process_v7
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: ___________________________
By: ____________________________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
April 1, 2025
50
EXHIBIT A
GENERAL FUNDS MISCELLANEOUS FEES
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Appeal of a decision to an administrative
appeals officer
$___ Fee will not be greater than the base
civil penalty being appealed.
2.75.170.C
This page has intentionally been left blank
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
07/28/2025
Date Sent to Council:
07/29/2025
From:
Department *
Mayor
Employee Name:
Otto, Rachel
E-mail
rachel.otto@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
07/28/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
07/29/2025
Subject:
Central Wasatch Commission - Addition of the City of Holladay
Additional Staff Contact:
Rachel Otto - rachel.otto@slc.govJaysen Oldroyd - jaysen.oldroyd@slc.gov.
Presenters/Staff Table
Rachel Otto - rachel.otto@slc.govJaysen Oldroyd - jaysen.oldroyd@slc.gov.
Document Type
Resolution
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
That City Council adopt the resolution by the end of August, 2025
Background/Discussion
According to its website, the Central Wasatch Commission (CWC) is “the governmental entity that the Mountain Accord charter called to create. Upon its creation, the Central Wasatch Commission was tasked with carrying out projects initiated during the Mountain Accord process including federal legislation, the Central Wasatch National Conservation and Recreation Area Act, the Central Wasatch Dashboard, the Visitor Use Study, and canyon transportation improvements.” (See https://cwc.utah.gov/about/). Salt Lake City was one of the original members of the CWC. Under the terms of the Interlocal Agreement, additional members may be added by a majority vote of all Commissioners serving on the board and a vote by the legislative body of each member. (See Section V of the CWC Interlocal Agreement at https://cwc.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/CENTRAL-WASATCH-COMMISSION-Interlocal-Entity-creation-1-24.pdf). The City of Holladay has been provisionally approved as a new member of the CWC. This transmittal includes the required resolution that must be adopted by the Salt Lake City Council to effectuate the City of Holladay’s membership. This action must be taken by the end of August, and the resolution must then be emailed to CWC’s executive director, Lindsey Neilsen, by August 31.
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
None.
This page has intentionally been left blank
RESOLUTION No. _____ of 2025
(A resolution admitting the City of Holladay as a member of the
Central Wasatch Commission)
WHEREAS, the Central Wasatch Commission (the “CWC”) is an interlocal entity that
was formed effective 29 June 2017 pursuant to the “Central Wasatch Commission Interlocal
Agreement” (the “Original ILA”), as amended (the “Amendment”) pursuant to Resolution 2020-
14 of the CWC’s governing body (the “Board”) and subsequent approval of the legislative bodies
of the CWC’s members (the Original ILA, as amended by the Amendment, is the “ILA”); and
WHEREAS, the current members (“Members”) of the CWC include Town of Alta, Town
of Brighton, City of Cottonwood Heights, City of Millcreek, Park City, Salt Lake City, Sandy City
and Summit County; and
WHEREAS, Article V.A. of the ILA allows additional Members to join the CWC pursuant
to the process provided in Article V.A.(2) of the ILA, which requires (a) approval by majority vote
of all of the commissioners then serving on the CWC Board, (b) approval by the legislative body
of each of the then-current Members, and (c) compliance with all the other requirements specified
in said Article V.A. (the “Admission Requirements”); and
WHEREAS, on 23 June 2025, pursuant to an application for CWC membership previously
submitted by the City of Holladay (“Holladay”), the Board enacted its Resolution 2025-17 inviting
Holladay to become a Member of the CWC subject to approval by the legislative body of each of
the current Members and compliance with all the other Admission Requirements; and
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City (the “City”), is a Member of the CWC; and
WHEREAS, the City Council (the “Council”) met in regular session on __ _________
2025 to consider, among other things, approving the admission of Holladay as a CWC Member as
provided above; and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration, the Council has determined that it is in the best
interests of the health, safety and welfare of the City’s residents to so approve Holladay’s
admission as an additional Member of the CWC as proposed by the Board;
2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Salt Lake City Council that the Council
hereby approves Holladay’s admission as an additional Member of the CWC conditioned upon (a)
approval by the governing body of each of the other Members, and (b) compliance with all the
other Admission Requirements.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, on __________, 2025.
______________________________________
Chris Wharton, Salt Lake City Council Chair
ATTEST:
_________________________
Keith Reynolds, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Office of the City Attorney
Date: _________________________
By: /s/ Jaysen Oldroyd
Jaysen Oldroyd, Senior City Attorney
This page has intentionally been left blank
SALT LAKE CITY BOARD MEMBER APPOINTMENT
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date:
07/07/2025
Date Sent To Council:
07/07/2025
From:
Otto, Rachel
Subject: Board Appointment Recommendation: Disciplinary Appeals Hearing Officer
Recommendation:
The Administration recommends the Council approve the appointment of Heidi J. Alder to the Disciplinary Appeals Hearing Officer for a 2 year
term starting on the date of City Council advice and consent .
Approved:*
Otto, Rachel
Item E1
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:August 12, 2025
RE: Resolution Extending the Time Period for Complying with the Conditions in
Ordinance 78 of 2023
MOTION 1 (adopt)
I move that the Council adopt a resolution extending the time to comply with the conditions in ordinance 78 of
2023 for an additional six months.
MOTION 2 (reject)
I move that the Council reject the resolution.
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:August 12, 2025
RE: Zoning Map Amendment at 2157 South Lincoln Street
PLNPCM2023-00239
August 12, 2025, UPDATE
On December 12, 2023 the Council adopted an ordinance rezoning the property at 2157 South Lincoln
Street subject to the property owner entering into a development agreement with the City within one year
(December 12, 2024).
There were several delays with finalizing the development agreement by the deadline, but work on the
agreement is progressing. The applicant has requested the Council grant an extension until February 12,
2026 to finalize the development agreement. Planning staff supports the request. If the Council is
supportive of granting the extension, it may approve a resolution extending the deadline during the August
12, 2025 formal meeting.
The following information was provided for previous Council meetings. It is included
again for background purposes.
PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE
Three people spoke at the November 7, 2023 public hearing in support of the proposed zoning map
amendment. They all expressed a desire for 10-foot-wide sidewalks adjacent to the potential development.
One commenter also suggested a condition that the developer enter into a development agreement with the
City to ensure the site’s Victorian home is preserved.
The Council closed the hearing and deferred action to a future meeting.
BRIEFING UPDATE
Item Schedule:
Page | 3
During the October 3, 2023 briefing Council Members expressed general support for the proposal. A desire
to maintain park strips and trees along the Lincoln Street and Elm Avenue frontages was expressed rather
than extending the sidewalks to the curb. Planning staff stated if a condition to increase sidewalk width is
not included in the ordinance or a development agreement, sidewalk widths required under City Code
would apply.
The following information was provided for the September 5, 2023 Council briefing
and public hearing. It is included again for background purposes.
Page | 4
Area zoning map with the subject parcel outlined in blue and the project area outlined in red.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed zoning map amendment during its July 26, 2023
meeting and held a public hearing at which three people, including a representative from the Sugar House
Community Council spoke. The commenters were supportive of the proposed zoning map amendment, but
expressed concerns about parking, landscaping, and sidewalk width.
Commissioners discussed sidewalk width and whether to recommend a condition requiring minimum 10-
foot-wide sidewalks as called for in the Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan. It is
worth noting some Commissioners felt the additional width was beneficial for the area, while others
expressed concerns with loss of park strips and trees.
The Commission voted 5-2 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. As
part of its recommendation, the Commission included the above-mentioned condition to
preserve the Victorian home, and a second condition to extend the width of sidewalks
abutting the subject parcels to include the park strip area.
Page | 5
Paul said sidewalk width should be specified if the Council wants to include that.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask the applicant if they would be amenable to including affordable units
in the proposed development. If yes, is the Council interested in asking the applicant if they would
be willing to enter into a development agreement pertaining to affordable housing units?
2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the recently transmitted Affordable Housing
Incentives proposal may impact this petition or development potential on the property if the
petitioner will consider affordable units.
3. If supportive of the zoning map amendment, the Council may wish to discuss whether to require a
development agreement that preserves the Victorian home.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. A formal site plan has been submitted to
the City, but it is not within the scope of the Council’s authority to review the plans. (It is worth noting that
the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the petitioner’s design review application at the
same meeting it voted to forward a positive recommendation to the Council on the zoning map
amendment.) Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application
should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential
project.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified four key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 6-8 of
the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the
staff report.
Planning staff noted the Sugar House Master Plan future land use map designates the subject property as
“Business District Mixed-Use Neighborhood Scale.” This is consistent with the future land use map’s
designation for all other parcels on the block. It is Planning’s opinion that the requested change from RB to
CSHBD2 zoning designation is reasonable and appropriate for the location.
As shown in the map above, area zoning is predominantly CSHBD2 on the subject block and blocks to the
east and west. FB-SE, R-1/5,000, and CSHBD2 are to the south. Nearby land uses are a mix of commercial
and residential. Smith’s grocery store is immediately to the west across Lincoln Street, low- and moderate-
density residential, and a tire shop are to the north. A small office building, duplexes and high-density
housing is to the northeast. Single-family residential is across Elm Avenue to the south.
Planning found that the proposal is consistent with the CSHBD zoning district purpose statement which
says: “The purpose of the CSHBD Sugar House Business District is to promote a walkable community with
a transit oriented, mixed-use town center that can support a 24-hour population. The CSHBD provides
residential, commercial and office use opportunities, with incentives for high density residential land uses
in a manner compatible with the existing form and function of the Sugar House Master Plan and the Sugar
House Business District.”
Page | 6
Planning staff further found that the proposal meets various principles and initiatives found in the Sugar
House Master Plan (2005), Plan Salt Lake (2015), and the SLC Urban Design Element (1990).
Consideration 4 – Preservation of the Victorian Mansion
The petitioner proposes preserving the Victorian home on the subject property. As mentioned above, the
home is not in a historic district and has no protection from demolition. Planning staff noted the home
would provide an anchor for the project, and act as a buffer between the proposed development and single-
family residential to the south across Elm Avenue. Planning staff and the Planning Commission
recommended including a development agreement to preserve the home if the Council is supportive of the
proposed zoning map amendment.
The petitioner provided the following concept rendering illustrating how the Victorian home could be
incorporated into the proposed development.
Image courtesy of petitioner
ZONING COMPARISON
The following table compares building height and setback requirements for the current RB and proposed
CSHBD2 zoning districts.
RB (Current)CSHBD2 (Proposed)
Maximum Building Height 30 feet 60 feet for residential use.
30 feet for nonresidential use.
Front Setback 20% of lot depth, but need not exceed
25 feet.
No minimum yard required.
Maximum setback is 15 feet.
Page | 6
Side Setback Corner side yard: 10 feet.
Interior side yard: 6 feet; provided,
that on interior lots one yard must be
at least ten feet.
Corner side yard: no minimum yard
required. Maximum setback is 15 feet.
Interior side yard: None required.
Rear Setback 25% of lot depth, but the yard need not
exceed 30 feet.
None required.
Analysis of Factors
Attachment D (pages 67-68) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment
standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are
summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information.
Factor Finding
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of
the city as stated through its various adopted
planning documents.
Complies
Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Complies
The extent to which a proposed map amendment will
affect adjacent properties
Complies
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent
with the purposes and provisions of any applicable
overlay zoning districts which may impose additional
standards.
Not applicable
The adequacy of public facilities and services
intended to serve the subject property, including, but
not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational
facilities, police and fire protection, schools,
stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and
wastewater and refuse collection.
Complies
City Department Review
During City review of the petitions, no responding departments or divisions expressed concerns with the
proposal, but stated additional review and permits would be required if the property is developed.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• April 14, 2023-Petition for zoning map amendment received by Planning Division.
• May 15, 2023-Petition assigned to Lex Traughber, Senior Planner.
o Notice mailed to the Sugar House Community Council and Sugar House Chamber of
Commerce.
Page | 7
• June 7, 2023-Petitioner presented their proposal to the Sugar House Community Council, with
Planning staff in attendance.
• June 26, 2023-Early notification mailed to property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of
the subject property boundaries.
• July 12, 2023-Property posted with signs for the July 26, 2023 Planning Commission hearing.
• July 13, 2023-Public hearing notice mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of
the subject property. Planning Commission agenda emailed to Planning listserv. Project posted to
City Planning and State websites.
• July 26, 2023-Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission voted to forward a
positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment.
• July 31, 2023-Draft ordinance sent to the City Attorney’s Office for review.
• August 3, 2023-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office.
• September 8, 2023-Transmittal received in City Council Office.
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
07/25/2025
Date Sent to Council:
08/06/2025
From:
Department *
Community and Neighborhood
Employee Name:
Traughber, Lex
E-mail
lex.traughber@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:
Resolution Extending the Time Period for Complying with the Conditions in Ordinance 78 of 2023
Additional Staff Contact:
amy.thompson@slc.gov
Presenters/Staff Table
Lex Traughber lex.traughber@slc.govAmy Thompson amy.thompson@slc.govMark Isaac markisaac@pinyon8.com
Document Type
Resolution
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
Extend the Time Period of Ordinance 78 of 2023 to February 12, 2026.
Background/Discussion
See first attachment for Background/Discussion
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
There will be a briefing and public hearing by the City Council on August 12, 2025.
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:
On December 12th, 2023, the Salt Lake City Council approved Ordinance 78 of 2023, amending the
zoning of the property located at 2157 S. Lincoln Street from RB - Residential/Business District to
CSHBD2 - Sugar House Business District. The proposed zoning map amendment was conditioned upon
the Petitioner entering into a development agreement with Salt Lake City to preserve the Victorian
mansion located on the subject property. Since that time, the petitioner has been actively working with
the City on a proposed development agreement.
Language in the Ordinance also stipulated that if conditions had not been met within one year after
adoption, the ordinance would become null and void, but further indicated that the City Council may, for
good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying conditions by resolution. The ordinance expired
on December 12, 2024.
The petitioner is requesting that the City Council extend the time period for complying with the
conditions of Ordinance 78 of 2023 for a period of six months to February 12, 2026.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Meeting Materials for the December 12, 2023, Meeting (Starting on page 222)
2. Resolution
This page has intentionally been left blank
1
SALT LAKE CITY
RESOLUTION NO. of 2025
(A resolution extending the time period for satisfying the condition set forth in Ordinance 78
of 2023 – an ordinance amending the zoning of property located at 2157 S. Lincoln Street
from RB Residential/Business District to CSHBD2 Sugar House Business District.)
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) enacted Ordinance 78 of 2023
on December 12, 2023; and
WHEREAS, that ordinance imposed certain conditions and required that those conditions
be met within one year from the date that the ordinance was adopted; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is progressing towards meeting the requirements to enter into
the development agreement as required by the ordinance; and
WHEREAS, an extension of the deadline is necessary in order to satisfy the requirements
of Ordinance 78 of 2023 so that the development agreement can be executed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there is good cause to extend the deadline in the
ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. The deadline set forth in Section 4 of Ordinance 78 of 2023 shall be and
hereby is extended from December 12, 2024 to February 12, 2026 for the property owner to
comply with the condition set forth in Section 2 of Ordinance 78 of 2023.
2
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)
No. ________ of 2025.
Published: ______________.
Resolution extending Ord. No. 78 of 2023.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: _7/24/25_____________________
By: _/s/ Courtney Lords__________________
Courtney Lords, Senior City Attorney
This page has intentionally been left blank