HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/13/2026 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
FORMAL MEETING
January 13, 2026 Tuesday 7:00 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at
the City & County Building. Learn more at tinyurl.com/SLCCouncilMeetings.
Council Chambers
451 South State Street, Room 315
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Victoria Petro
District 1
Alejandro Puy
District 2
Chris Wharton
District 3
Eva Lopez Chavez
District 4
Erika Carlsen
District 5
Dan Dugan
District 6
Sarah Young
District 7
Generated: 14:21:25
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet
determined.
WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES
A.OPENING CEREMONY:
1.Council Member Chris Wharton will conduct the formal meeting.
2.Pledge of Allegiance.
3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules.
4.Recognition of Chris Wharton for his service to Salt Lake City as 2025 Council
Chair.
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Items B1 – B5 will be heard as one public hearing.
1. Grant Application: Fiscal Year 2025 Office of Justice Program Community-
Based Violence Intervention & Prevention Initiative Grant
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Police
Department to the U.S. Department of Justice. If awarded, the grant would fund travel,
training, equipment, supplies, a consultant from National Network for Safer
Communities, registration for training, overtime for SLCPD and law enforcement
partners and a community survey. The grant would also fund two new full-time positions.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, January 13, 2026 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
2. Grant Application: Law Enforcement-Based Victim Services Mini-Grant
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Police
Department to the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). If awarded, the
grant would fund supplies for outreach items and travel training for the victim advocate
team.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, January 13, 2026 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
3. Grant Application: 2025 DUI Enforcement Equipment Grant
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Police
Department to the State of Utah. If awarded, the grant would fund 30 portable breath
testing (PBT) devices. The devices would be ordered by the state ADF Committee and
shipped to the police department. The department will not receive funding for the devices
directly.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, January 13, 2026 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
4. Grant Application: Surface Transportation Program 2025 for Fiscal Year
2032
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Community and Neighborhoods Department to the U.S. Department of Transportation
administered by Utah Department of Transportation and Wasatch Front Regional
Council. If awarded, the grant would fund the Wakara Way Roadway Reconstruction
from Foothill Drive to Arapeen Drive located in the University of Utah Research Park.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, January 13, 2026 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
5. Grant Application: Congestion Mitigation Air Quality 2025 or Carbon
Reduction Program 2025 for Fiscal Year 2032
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Community and Neighborhoods Department to the U.S. Department of Transportation
administered by Utah Department of Transportation and Wasatch Front Regional
Council. If awarded, the grant would fund construction of the Wakara Way/Chipeta Way
Roundabout located in the University of Utah Research Park.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, January 13, 2026 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
6. Ordinance: Consolidated Fee Schedule Corrections – Public Utilities
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending
the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS). During the budget process for fiscal
year 2025-26, the CFS was updated with several changes. After the schedule was
approved and adopted by the Council, Departments noticed errors and omissions that
needed to be corrected. The changes include adding the Title "Fire Lines" and the
Description "Per Inch" to one of the rate tables in the CFS for Public Utilities.
For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/FY26FireLines.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, September 16, 2025, Tuesday, October 14, 2025, Tuesday,
November 25, 2025, and Tuesday, December 2, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, December 9, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, January 13, 2026 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:
NONE.
D.COMMENTS:
1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council.
2.Comments to the City Council. (This is a one-hour time slot for the public to
comment on any City business not scheduled for a public hearing. Each person
will have two minutes to talk. General comment registration closes at 7:30 p.m.)
E.NEW BUSINESS:
1. Motion: Nomination of Council Chair and Vice Chair for Calendar Year 2026
The Council will consider a motion to ratify the election of Chair and Vice-Chair of the
Salt Lake City Council for calendar year 2026.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider
motions.
F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Ordinance: Consolidated Fee Schedule Amendment for The Public Lands
Department
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance amending the Salt Lake City
Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS). During the budget process for fiscal year 2025-26, the
CFS was updated with several changes. After the schedule was approved and adopted by
the Council, Departments noticed errors and omissions that needed to be corrected. The
changes include an exemption to credit card use surcharge fees for certain transactions in
the Public Lands Department.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, December 9, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
G.CONSENT:
1. Ordinance Clarification: RMF 35/45 Amendments
The Council will correct an oversight from the December 9, 2025 formal meeting
pertaining to the ordinances amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City
Code for the RMF 35/45 districts and the related map amendment. The clarification
identifies the adoption of four ordinances by the Council: Ordinances No. 74A, No. 74B,
and No. 74C, amending portions of the Salt Lake City Code, and Ordinance No. 74D,
which effectuates certain map amendments. Petition No.: PLNPCM2024-01388.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
2. Resolution: Creation of The Silo Park Public Infrastructure District
The Council will set the date of Tuesday, January 20, 2026 at 7 p.m. to accept public
comment on a resolution that would create the Silos Park Public Infrastructure District,
at approximately 470 West 600 South. The proposed district would assist with financing
the construction of public infrastructure related to development, including construction
and maintenance of a right-of-way (a curb, a gutter, a sidewalk, a street, a road, a water
line, a sewage line, a storm drain, an electricity line, a communications line, a natural gas
line, or street lighting). The public hearing allows for input on whether the requested
service is needed and if the service should be provided by the City, County, or the
proposed district, and all other matters relating to the proposed district. The Council has
not yet set a date to take formal action to approve the proposed district. Petitioner:
Joseph McKay, representing Olympus QOZB, LLC, Silos South Apartments Building 3,
LLC, Silos Midblock QOZB, LLC, and Silos South Apartments, LLC.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, January 20, 2026 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
3. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.4 for Fiscal Year 2025-26
The Council will set the date of Tuesday, February 3, 2026 at 7 p.m. to accept public
comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending the final budget of Salt Lake
City, including the employment staffing document for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget.
Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s
budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed
amendment includes the rescoping of Open Streets funds, a mobile command center
purchase, Old Library (formerly known as the Leonardo) capital improvements, a
pedestrian bridge, and Fleet purchases, among other items.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY26.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 3, 2026 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, February 17, 2026
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
4. Board Reappointment: Business Advisory Board – Andy Robertson
The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Andy Robertson, resident of
District 3, to the Business Advisory Board for a term ending December 31, 2029.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
5. Board Reappointment: Racial Equity in Policing Commission – Julia
Summerfield
The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Julia Summerfield, resident of
District 3, to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission for a term ending December 27,
2027.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
6. Board Reappointment: Racial Equity in Policing Commission – Katherine
Durant
The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Katherine Durant, resident of
District 5, to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission for a term ending December 27,
2027.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
7. Board Reappointment: Racial Equity in Policing Commission – Steven
Calbert
The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Steven Calbert, resident
outside the city, to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission for a term ending December
27, 2027.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
8. Board Reappointment: Mosquito Abatement District – Shireen Mooers
The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Shireen Mooers, resident of
District 6, to the Mosquito Abatement District Board for a term ending December 27,
2029.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
H.ADJOURNMENT:
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday January 8, 2026, 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.
Item B1-B5
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:January 13, 2026
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
________________________________________________________________________________
The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-1 through B-5 to a
future Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS
Yes. $368,464
from the
annual budget
process for
the year that
construction
begins.
If approved, the grant
would fund the Wakara
Way Roadway
Reconstruction (Foothill
Drive to Arapeen Drive).
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$5,074,136 U.S.D.O.T.
admini-
stered by
Utah Dept. of
Transpor-
tation and
Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
(WFRC)
CAN
No.If approved, grant would
fund 2 NEW Crime
Analyst II positions for
the Real Time Crime
Center, overtime,
travel/training, cameras,
monitors, computers,
supplies, and a contract
for a consultant from
Nat’l Network for Safer
Communities. The grant
period is 4 years.
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$2 million U.S. Dept. of
Justice,
Office of
Justice
Programs,
Bureau of
Justice
Assistance
Police
Department
Yes. $105,382
from the
annual budget
process for
If approved, the grant
would fund the
conversion of a four-way
stop-controlled
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$1,451,218 U.S.D.O.T.
admini-
stered by
Utah Dept. of
CAN
the year that
construction
begins.
Mitigation Air Quality
2025 or Carbon
Reduction Program
2025 for Fiscal Year
2032
intersection, located in
the University of Utah
Research Park adjacent
to the University of Utah
hospital campus, to a
roundabout.
Transpor-
tation and
Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
(WFRC)
4.No.-0-IACP Law
Enforcement-Based
Victim Services (LEV)
Mini-Grant
If approved, grant would
fund travel/training
costs for victim advocate
team and supplies.
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$20,000 Inter-
national
Association
of Chiefs of
Police (IACP)
Police
Department
5.No.-0-2025 DUI Enforcement
Equipment
If approved the grant
would provide the actual
equipment instead of
the funding.
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$11,670 is
the value of
the
equipment
or $389 per
device.
State of Utah Police
Department
The Administration has provided the following information based on questions from Council staff:
2. FY25 OJP Community-Based Violence Intervention & Prevention Initiative (CVIPI) Grant
a. Is this a one-time grant, or will the city be able to apply for it in future years?
Answer: This grant was launched in 2022 and is anticipated to be available in future years.
b. Will the general fund be expected to fund the 2 new analyst positions once the grant funding is exhausted?
Answer: Yes, the general fund would be anticipated to fund the 2 new analyst positions once the grant funding is exhausted, as their importance to the work on violence
prevention and intervention will be ongoing.
Grant Application Submission Notification Memo
TO: Office of the City Council |Krystyn Mace, Linda Sanchez, ccanalysts@slc.gov
Office of the Mayor | Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto, Jill Love
Department of Finance | Ben Luedtke, Mary Beth Thompson, Amy Dorsey, Randy Hillier, cc Grants Team
Office of the City Attorney | Jaysen Oldroyd, Mark Kittrell, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com
FROM: Laura Nygaard
DATE: November 7, 2025
SUBJECT: FY25 OVP Community Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative (CVIPI) Grant Application
FUNDING AGENCIES: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance
GRANT PROGRAM: FY25 OJP Community Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative (CVIPI) Grant
REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $2,000,000
DEPARTMENT: Police
COLLABORATING AGENCIES: N/A
DATE SUBMITTED: November 7, 2025
SPECIFICS:
Equipment/Supplies
Technical Assistance
Provides Hourly Positions
Existing New - 2 Overtime Requires Funding After Grant
Explanation:
Match Required ______________________ In-Kind Services and Cash
GRANT DETAILS:
The Salt Lake City Police Department has applied for the FY25 OJP Community Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative
(CVIPI) Grant. The application includes a request for funds totaling $2,000,000 for the following:
• Personnel (2 crime analyst II positions) ∼ $715,420
• Fringe Benefits (2 crime analyst II positions) ∼ $264,704
• Travel/Training (for crime analysts and other employees) ∼ $81,291
• Equipment (cameras, monitors, computers, Real Time Crime Center set up) ∼ $573,315
• Supplies (community engagement, video accessories, video content) ∼ $24,718
• Contracts (consultant from National Network for Safer Communities) ∼ $10,000
• Other (registration for training, overtime for SLCPD and law enforcement partners, community survey) ∼ $330,552
If awarded, grant period is 4 years, from October 2025 – September 2029.
Item B1-B5
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:January 13, 2026
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
________________________________________________________________________________
The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-1 through B-5 to a
future Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS
Yes. $368,464
from the
annual budget
process for
the year that
construction
begins.
If approved, the grant
would fund the Wakara
Way Roadway
Reconstruction (Foothill
Drive to Arapeen Drive).
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$5,074,136 U.S.D.O.T.
admini-
stered by
Utah Dept. of
Transpor-
tation and
Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
(WFRC)
CAN
No.If approved, grant would
fund 2 NEW Crime
Analyst II positions for
the Real Time Crime
Center, overtime,
travel/training, cameras,
monitors, computers,
supplies, and a contract
for a consultant from
Nat’l Network for Safer
Communities. The grant
period is 4 years.
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$2 million U.S. Dept. of
Justice,
Office of
Justice
Programs,
Bureau of
Justice
Assistance
Police
Department
Yes. $105,382
from the
annual budget
process for
If approved, the grant
would fund the
conversion of a four-way
stop-controlled
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$1,451,218 U.S.D.O.T.
admini-
stered by
Utah Dept. of
CAN
the year that
construction
begins.
Mitigation Air Quality
2025 or Carbon
Reduction Program
2025 for Fiscal Year
2032
intersection, located in
the University of Utah
Research Park adjacent
to the University of Utah
hospital campus, to a
roundabout.
Transpor-
tation and
Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
(WFRC)
4.No.-0-IACP Law
Enforcement-Based
Victim Services (LEV)
Mini-Grant
If approved, grant would
fund travel/training
costs for victim advocate
team and supplies.
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$20,000 Inter-
national
Association
of Chiefs of
Police (IACP)
Police
Department
5.No.-0-2025 DUI Enforcement
Equipment
If approved the grant
would provide the actual
equipment instead of
the funding.
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$11,670 is
the value of
the
equipment
or $389 per
device.
State of Utah Police
Department
The Administration has provided the following information based on questions from Council staff:
2. FY25 OJP Community-Based Violence Intervention & Prevention Initiative (CVIPI) Grant
a. Is this a one-time grant, or will the city be able to apply for it in future years?
Answer: This grant was launched in 2022 and is anticipated to be available in future years.
b. Will the general fund be expected to fund the 2 new analyst positions once the grant funding is exhausted?
Answer: Yes, the general fund would be anticipated to fund the 2 new analyst positions once the grant funding is exhausted, as their importance to the work on violence
prevention and intervention will be ongoing.
Grant Application Submission Notification Memo
TO: Office of the City Council |Krystyn Mace, Linda Sanchez, ccanalysts@slc.gov
Office of the Mayor | Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto, Jill Love
Department of Finance | Ben Luedtke, Mary Beth Thompson, Amy Dorsey, Randy Hillier, cc Grants Team
Office of the City Attorney | Jaysen Oldroyd, Mark Kittrell, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com
FROM: Laura Nygaard
DATE: November 6, 2025
SUBJECT: IACP Law Enforcement-Based Victim Services (LEV) Mini-Grant Application
FUNDING AGENCIES: International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
GRANT PROGRAM: IACP Law Enforcement-Based Victim Services (LEV) Mini-Grant
REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $20,000
DEPARTMENT: Police
COLLABORATING AGENCIES: N/A
DATE SUBMITTED: November 3, 2025
SPECIFICS:
X Equipment/Supplies
Technical Assistance
Provides Hourly Positions
Existing New Overtime Requires Funding After Grant
Explanation:
Match Required ______________________ In-Kind Services and Cash
GRANT DETAILS:
The Salt Lake City Police Department has applied for the IACP Law Enforcement-Based Victim Services (LEV) Mini-Grant. The
application includes a request for funds totaling $20,000 for the following:
• Supplies for outreach items ∼ $2,600
• Travel training costs for victim advocate team ∼ $17,400
• Applications are first-come, first-serve
Item B1-B5
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:January 13, 2026
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
________________________________________________________________________________
The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-1 through B-5 to a
future Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS
Yes. $368,464
from the
annual budget
process for
the year that
construction
begins.
If approved, the grant
would fund the Wakara
Way Roadway
Reconstruction (Foothill
Drive to Arapeen Drive).
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$5,074,136 U.S.D.O.T.
admini-
stered by
Utah Dept. of
Transpor-
tation and
Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
(WFRC)
CAN
No.If approved, grant would
fund 2 NEW Crime
Analyst II positions for
the Real Time Crime
Center, overtime,
travel/training, cameras,
monitors, computers,
supplies, and a contract
for a consultant from
Nat’l Network for Safer
Communities. The grant
period is 4 years.
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$2 million U.S. Dept. of
Justice,
Office of
Justice
Programs,
Bureau of
Justice
Assistance
Police
Department
Yes. $105,382
from the
annual budget
process for
If approved, the grant
would fund the
conversion of a four-way
stop-controlled
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$1,451,218 U.S.D.O.T.
admini-
stered by
Utah Dept. of
CAN
the year that
construction
begins.
Mitigation Air Quality
2025 or Carbon
Reduction Program
2025 for Fiscal Year
2032
intersection, located in
the University of Utah
Research Park adjacent
to the University of Utah
hospital campus, to a
roundabout.
Transpor-
tation and
Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
(WFRC)
4.No.-0-IACP Law
Enforcement-Based
Victim Services (LEV)
Mini-Grant
If approved, grant would
fund travel/training
costs for victim advocate
team and supplies.
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$20,000 Inter-
national
Association
of Chiefs of
Police (IACP)
Police
Department
5.No.-0-2025 DUI Enforcement
Equipment
If approved the grant
would provide the actual
equipment instead of
the funding.
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$11,670 is
the value of
the
equipment
or $389 per
device.
State of Utah Police
Department
The Administration has provided the following information based on questions from Council staff:
2. FY25 OJP Community-Based Violence Intervention & Prevention Initiative (CVIPI) Grant
a. Is this a one-time grant, or will the city be able to apply for it in future years?
Answer: This grant was launched in 2022 and is anticipated to be available in future years.
b. Will the general fund be expected to fund the 2 new analyst positions once the grant funding is exhausted?
Answer: Yes, the general fund would be anticipated to fund the 2 new analyst positions once the grant funding is exhausted, as their importance to the work on violence
prevention and intervention will be ongoing.
Grant Application Submission Notification Memo
TO: Office of the City Council |Krystyn Mace, Linda Sanchez, ccanalysts@slc.gov
Office of the Mayor | Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto, Jill Love
Department of Finance | Ben Luedtke, Mary Beth Thompson, Amy Dorsey, Randy Hillier, cc Grants Team
Office of the City Attorney | Jaysen Oldroyd, Mark Kittrell, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com
FROM: Laura Nygaard
DATE: December 1, 2025
SUBJECT: 2025 State of Utah ADF Committee DUI Enforcement Equipment Grant Application
FUNDING AGENCIES: State of Utah
GRANT PROGRAM: 2025 DUI Enforcement Equipment
REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $11,670 value of (30) FST Portable Breath Testing (PBT) devices (request is for the FST devices,
and not funding)
DEPARTMENT: Police
COLLABORATING AGENCIES: N/A
DATE SUBMITTED: November 26, 2025
SPECIFICS:
Equipment/Supplies
Technical Assistance
Provides Hourly Positions
Existing New Overtime Requires Funding After Grant
Explanation:
Match Required ______________________ In-Kind Services and Cash
GRANT DETAILS:
The Salt Lake City Police Department is requesting 30 portable breath testing (PBT) devices, estimated to be $11,670 value. If
awarded, the devices will be ordered by the state ADF Committee and shipped to the police department. The department will not
receive funding for the devices directly.
Item B1-B5
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:January 13, 2026
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
________________________________________________________________________________
The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-1 through B-5 to a
future Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS
Yes. $368,464
from the
annual budget
process for
the year that
construction
begins.
If approved, the grant
would fund the Wakara
Way Roadway
Reconstruction (Foothill
Drive to Arapeen Drive).
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$5,074,136 U.S.D.O.T.
admini-
stered by
Utah Dept. of
Transpor-
tation and
Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
(WFRC)
CAN
No.If approved, grant would
fund 2 NEW Crime
Analyst II positions for
the Real Time Crime
Center, overtime,
travel/training, cameras,
monitors, computers,
supplies, and a contract
for a consultant from
Nat’l Network for Safer
Communities. The grant
period is 4 years.
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$2 million U.S. Dept. of
Justice,
Office of
Justice
Programs,
Bureau of
Justice
Assistance
Police
Department
Yes. $105,382
from the
annual budget
process for
If approved, the grant
would fund the
conversion of a four-way
stop-controlled
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$1,451,218 U.S.D.O.T.
admini-
stered by
Utah Dept. of
CAN
the year that
construction
begins.
Mitigation Air Quality
2025 or Carbon
Reduction Program
2025 for Fiscal Year
2032
intersection, located in
the University of Utah
Research Park adjacent
to the University of Utah
hospital campus, to a
roundabout.
Transpor-
tation and
Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
(WFRC)
4.No.-0-IACP Law
Enforcement-Based
Victim Services (LEV)
Mini-Grant
If approved, grant would
fund travel/training
costs for victim advocate
team and supplies.
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$20,000 Inter-
national
Association
of Chiefs of
Police (IACP)
Police
Department
5.No.-0-2025 DUI Enforcement
Equipment
If approved the grant
would provide the actual
equipment instead of
the funding.
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$11,670 is
the value of
the
equipment
or $389 per
device.
State of Utah Police
Department
The Administration has provided the following information based on questions from Council staff:
2. FY25 OJP Community-Based Violence Intervention & Prevention Initiative (CVIPI) Grant
a. Is this a one-time grant, or will the city be able to apply for it in future years?
Answer: This grant was launched in 2022 and is anticipated to be available in future years.
b. Will the general fund be expected to fund the 2 new analyst positions once the grant funding is exhausted?
Answer: Yes, the general fund would be anticipated to fund the 2 new analyst positions once the grant funding is exhausted, as their importance to the work on violence
prevention and intervention will be ongoing.
Grant Application Submission Notification Memo
TO: Office of the City Council |Krystyn Mace, Linda Sanchez, ccanalysts@slc.gov
Office of the Mayor | Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto, Jill Love
Department of Finance | Ben Luedtke, Mary Beth Thompson, Amy Dorsey, Randy Hillier
Office of the City Attorney | Jaysen Oldroyd, Mark Kittrell, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com
FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart
DATE: December 17, 2025
SUBJECT: Wakara Way Roadway Reconstruction - Surface Transportation Program 2025 for Fiscal Year 2032
FUNDING AGENCIES: U.S. Department of Transportation administered by Utah Department of
Transportation and Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC)
GRANT PROGRAM: Surface Transportation Program 2025 for Fiscal Year 2032
PROJECT TITLE: Wakara Way Roadway Reconstruction
REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $5,074,136
DEPARTMENT: Community & Neighborhoods
COLLABORATING AGENCIES: N/A
DATE SUBMITTED: December 11, 2025
SPECIFICS:
☐ Equipment/Supplies Only
☐ Technical Assistance
☐ Provides Full-Time Positions
☐ Existing ☐ New ☐ Overtime ☐ Requires Funding After Grant
Explanation:
☒ Match Required ____$368,464_________________ ☐ In-Kind Services ☒ Cash
GRANT DETAILS:
• Salt Lake City requested $5,074,136 and committed a non-federal match of $368,525 for the Wakara Way Roadway
Reconstruction from Foothill Drive to Arapeen Drive located in the University of Utah Research Park.
• The reconstruction will address poor pavement and street flooding, while adding safer bikeways and more direct
continuous sidewalks per the Salt Lake City Street Typology Guide.
• Construction elements include replacement of deteriorated pavement, improved intersection geometry for
pedestrian priority, raised crosswalks and shorter crossing distances, addition of missing sidewalk, upgrades to
existing bicycle lanes, enhanced bus stops, and upgrades to stormwater infrastructure to address rainwater
flooding in extreme weather events.
• The Wakara Way Roadway Reconstruction is co-led by the City’s Divisions of Engineering and Transportation.
• In the event of a grant award notification, the non-federal match will be secured through the City’s annual budget
process for the year that construction will take place.
Item B1-B5
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:January 13, 2026
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
________________________________________________________________________________
The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-1 through B-5 to a
future Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
NEW GRANT APPLICATIONS
Yes. $368,464
from the
annual budget
process for
the year that
construction
begins.
If approved, the grant
would fund the Wakara
Way Roadway
Reconstruction (Foothill
Drive to Arapeen Drive).
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$5,074,136 U.S.D.O.T.
admini-
stered by
Utah Dept. of
Transpor-
tation and
Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
(WFRC)
CAN
No.If approved, grant would
fund 2 NEW Crime
Analyst II positions for
the Real Time Crime
Center, overtime,
travel/training, cameras,
monitors, computers,
supplies, and a contract
for a consultant from
Nat’l Network for Safer
Communities. The grant
period is 4 years.
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$2 million U.S. Dept. of
Justice,
Office of
Justice
Programs,
Bureau of
Justice
Assistance
Police
Department
Yes. $105,382
from the
annual budget
process for
If approved, the grant
would fund the
conversion of a four-way
stop-controlled
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$1,451,218 U.S.D.O.T.
admini-
stered by
Utah Dept. of
CAN
the year that
construction
begins.
Mitigation Air Quality
2025 or Carbon
Reduction Program
2025 for Fiscal Year
2032
intersection, located in
the University of Utah
Research Park adjacent
to the University of Utah
hospital campus, to a
roundabout.
Transpor-
tation and
Wasatch
Front
Regional
Council
(WFRC)
4.No.-0-IACP Law
Enforcement-Based
Victim Services (LEV)
Mini-Grant
If approved, grant would
fund travel/training
costs for victim advocate
team and supplies.
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$20,000 Inter-
national
Association
of Chiefs of
Police (IACP)
Police
Department
5.No.-0-2025 DUI Enforcement
Equipment
If approved the grant
would provide the actual
equipment instead of
the funding.
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No.$11,670 is
the value of
the
equipment
or $389 per
device.
State of Utah Police
Department
The Administration has provided the following information based on questions from Council staff:
2. FY25 OJP Community-Based Violence Intervention & Prevention Initiative (CVIPI) Grant
a. Is this a one-time grant, or will the city be able to apply for it in future years?
Answer: This grant was launched in 2022 and is anticipated to be available in future years.
b. Will the general fund be expected to fund the 2 new analyst positions once the grant funding is exhausted?
Answer: Yes, the general fund would be anticipated to fund the 2 new analyst positions once the grant funding is exhausted, as their importance to the work on violence
prevention and intervention will be ongoing.
Grant Application Submission Notification Memo
TO: Office of the City Council |Krystyn Mace, Linda Sanchez, ccanalysts@slc.gov
Office of the Mayor | Erin Mendenhall, Rachel Otto, Jill Love
Department of Finance | Ben Luedtke, Mary Beth Thompson, Amy Dorsey, Randy Hillier
Office of the City Attorney | Jaysen Oldroyd, Mark Kittrell, SLCRecorder@slcgov.com
FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart, Management & Grant Analyst, Department of Finance
DATE: December 17, 2025
SUBJECT: Wakara Way/Chipeta Way Roundabout - Congestion Mitigation Air Quality 2025 or Carbon Reduction Program
2025 for Fiscal Year 2032
FUNDING AGENCIES: U.S. Department of Transportation administered by Utah Department of
Transportation and Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC)
GRANT PROGRAM: Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) 2025 for Fiscal Year 2032
Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) 2025 for Fiscal Year 2032
PROJECT TITLE: Wakara Way/Chipeta Way Roundabout
REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $1,451,218
DEPARTMENT: Community & Neighborhoods
COLLABORATING AGENCIES: Not applicable
DATE SUBMITTED: December 11, 2025
SPECIFICS:
☐ Equipment/Supplies Only
☐ Technical Assistance
☐ Provides Full-Time Positions
☐ Existing ☐ New ☐ Overtime ☐ Requires Funding After Grant
Explanation:
☒ Match Required _____$105,382____________ ☐ In-Kind Services ☒ Cash
GRANT DETAILS:
• Salt Lake City requested $1,451,218 and committed a non-federal match of $105,382 for the construction of the
Wakara Way/Chipeta Way Roundabout.
• The project converts a four-way stop-controlled intersection, located in the University of Utah Research Park
adjacent to the University of Utah hospital campus, to a roundabout and situates a travel environment that
lowers speeds, increases safety, and reduces traffic delays during peak morning and afternoon travel times.
• Construction elements include a central island for vehicle traffic guidance, raised crosswalks and rectangular
rapid flashing beacons for pedestrians, a shared use path for bicycle and scooter traffic, and transit stops.
• This capital project lead is the City’s Division of Transportation.
• In the event of a grant award notification, the non-federal match will be secured through the City’s annual budget
process for the year that construction will take place.
Item B6
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: Austin Kimmel
Public Policy Analyst
DATE:January 13, 2026
RE: MOTION SHEET - CONSOLIDATED FEE SCHEDULE (CFS) CORRECTION - MISSING
TITLE AND DESCRIPTION
MOTION 1 – CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DEFER
I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council
meeting.
MOTION 2 – CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council continue to the public hearing to a future Council meeting.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF MEMO
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel
DATE:January 13, 2026
RE: CONSOLIDATED FEE SCHEDULE (CFS) CORRECTION - MISSING TITLE AND
DESCRIPTION
NEW INFORMATION – JANUARY 13, 2026
NEW INFORMATION – DECEMBER 2, 2025
Compliance with State Law for fee setting – the lack of proper labeling on the CFS means that the
fee should not have been charged as of July 1. Staff recommendation: credit customers who paid the
increased fee between July 1 and present. (Please note: financial impact info below.)
UPDATED Item Schedule:
Page | 2
2.Steepness of the increase – the steep one-step increase caused surprise to customers, especially
when combined with other rate changes. If the Council does not wish to approve the one-time FY26
increase, it could consider a two- or three-step schedule to phase in the increase. (Please note: financial
impact info below.)
3.Proper Labeling – the CFS missed key words to indicate the fee is charged per inch. Staff
recommendation: accept the proposed edits to ensure proper labeling on the CFS.
The following is a summary of new information discussed during the briefing.
Fee Compliance Issue (#1): Council staff learned that the missing “Per Inch” description from the
Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS), which prompted the administration’s initial correction request, represents a
more significant issue than originally understood. Utah Code Section 10-8-22 requires municipal water rates to
be set legislatively by ordinance with uniform notice and opportunity for public participation.
Because the per-inch multiplier was not clearly described in the published CFS, it is recommended that the
Council adopt corrected CFS language before Public Utilities charges the fee and that Public Utilities provide
credits for fees paid by customers from the beginning of FY26 up to the adoption date. The increased fire line
fees have been charged to 3,453 customer accounts with fire service lines since July 1, 2025.
Corrected Financial Impact (Related to #1 and #2): During the November 25 briefing, Public Utilities
corrected an earlier revenue estimate. Rather than a $740,237 annual shortfall if the fire line fee increase is not
implemented, the actual shortfall would be approximately $1.7 million annually. If the Council approves the
corrected CFS language and requests credited fees for the six-month period from July 1 through December 2025
(the soonest the Council could adopt the corrected CFS language at this time), it is assumed that approximately
$850,000 would be credited to customers.
Phase-In Options (#2): As requested by Council Members, Public Utilities has analyzed two phase-in
implementation scenarios to mitigate immediate customer impacts:
Two-Year Phase-In: Public Utilities would charge 75% of the FY26 rate in year one, then increase by
56% in year two to reach the full rate.
Three-Year Phase-In: Public Utilities would charge 50% of the FY26 rate in year one, then increase by
80% in year two, and by 95% in year three to reach the full rate.
Both phase-in options carry significant budget implications. Fire line fees fund maintenance and operational
costs required to provide existing service levels. Postponing maintenance could create substantial system risks
that may be more costly to repair than to maintain. As explained by the administration, revenue shortfalls
during phase-in periods would be covered through bonds or loans, requiring repayment with interest through
future rates.
The administration provided the table below showing the expected revenue and shortfall over three years for
both the two-year phase-in (Phase 1) and the three-year phase-in (Phase 2) scenarios compared to the current
FY26 rate.
Page | 3
Council Direction Requested: In summary, Staff is seeking Council direction on two items:
1. Does the Council approve requesting Public Utilities to develop a process for crediting fees paid by
customers since July 1, 2025, until the adoption of corrected CFS language?
2. Which fee scenario does the Council favor upon adoption of the corrected CFS language?
a. The full FY26 rates, as is currently being collected,
b. The two-year phase-in, or
c. The three-year phase-in.
NEW INFORMATION – NOVEMBER 25, 2025
Following the October 14 work session briefing, Council Members requested a follow-up briefing to discuss a
potential phased implementation of the fire line fee increase, which was mentioned during the discussion.
Based on the phase-in scenarios and financial analysis presented by Public Utilities, the Council has postponed
action on the Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS) correction to a future meeting, allowing additional time for
review and consideration of options and fiscal impacts.
Lastly, in additional correspondence with the Administration, it was confirmed that the fire line fee, established
in City Ordinance 17.16.520 (below) and in place for at least 64 years, had never been included in the published
CFS before this fiscal year. This does not affect the City's authority to charge the fee, but does impact the
transparency of the fees charged on accounts.
17.16.520: UNMETERED FIRE PROTECTION PIPES PERMITTED WHEN:
Pipes to be used only in case of fire will be allowed within buildings on the following conditions:
A. Applicant must petition the city in writing for permission to install any unmetered or metered
fire protection pipe system, and all installation and connection costs and charges in connection
therewith shall be paid by the applicant.
B. Except for the water source connection, such fire pipes must be entirely unconnected with any
other system and must not serve any other function.
C. Fire hose connections must contain adequate seals or other measures acceptable to the director
of public utilities, so that they can only be used for fighting fires.
D. All nonmetered fire system connections to the city water system shall be subject to a charge as
determined by the public utilities director. (Prior code § 49-6-41)
NEW INFORMATION – OCTOBER 14, 2025
Following the Council's September 16 written briefing, questions about the fire line fees were raised by Council
Members and members of the public. As a result of these questions, it was determined that a public briefing
should be scheduled to provide additional information about the fees.
A fire service line is a dedicated water line that supplies water to fire sprinklers or private fire hydrants, separate
from regular water service. Fire service lines are common in multi-family residential properties or townhomes
with shared infrastructure.
According to Public Utilities, the fees it charges for fire lines have not increased in at least 64 years. As part of
the Public Utilities FY26 budget, the fee for fire lines increased to match the actual cost of service associated
with the lines based on an analysis conducted during Public Utilities' 2024 Comprehensive Water, Wastewater,
and Stormwater Rate Study. As a correction to the BACKGROUND section below, Public Utilities staff have
recently become aware of records indicating fire line fees have been in place since at least 1961, rather than the
1981 date referenced.
Page | 4
During the budget process, Public Utilities' engagement materials focused on principal fees and rates that apply
to most customers, rather than its miscellaneous fees, such as fire line charges, which affect a limited number of
properties. While the fire line fees were noticed in the FY26 Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS), they were not
specifically highlighted in public outreach materials due to their narrow applicability. The Council's October 14
briefing provides an opportunity to learn more about the specific fee for fire lines.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
BACKGROUND
FINANCIAL IMPACT
REDLINED CFS SCHEDULE
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of ____ 2026
(Amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule Related to Fire Line Fees)
An ordinance amending fees and fee information in the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee
Schedule related to certain fire line fees.
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011 the City Council adopted Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24
and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule has since been amended from
time to time; and
WHEREAS, it is now proposed that the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule be
amended to include, eliminate, or otherwise modify fees and fee information regarding certain
fire lines as shown in the attached Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a hearing regarding this proposed ordinance that
amends the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule on January 13, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds (i) the fees set forth in Exhibit A are necessary,
reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service costs incurred by the City; and (ii)
adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the
citizens of Salt Lake City.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. That the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is,
amended in pertinent part as set forth in the attached Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 2. That a revised copy of the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule that
reflects the amendments set forth in the attached Exhibit “A” shall be published on the official
Salt Lake City website.
SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective upon publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of _________, 2026.
______________________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________.
Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed.
_______________________________________
MAYOR
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _______ of 2026.
Published: __________________
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
By: __/s/ Jaysen Oldroyd
Jaysen Oldroyd, Senior City
Attorney
Date: ___Jan 13, 2026
WATER
For questions regarding Water fees contact: 801.483.6900
Service Fee
Monthly Service Fee
Size of connection Monthly Amount
City County
5/8 inch - 3/4 inch $22.48 $30.35 17.16.670
1 inch $28.57 $38.57 17.16.670
1 1/2 inch $43.66 $58.94 17.16.670
2 inch $61.85 $83.50 17.16.670
3 inch $110.40 $149.04 17.16.670
4 inch $164.95 $222.68 17.16.670
6 inch $316.43 $427.18 17.16.670
8 inch $498.28 $672.68 17.16.670
10 inch $710.49 $959.16 17.16.670
12 inch $1,036.26 $1,398.95 17.16.670
Fire Hydrant $399.49 $539.31 17.16.590
Low Income Abatement: Customer who are granted abatement for taxes
on their dwelling shall be granted a five dollar fifty cent ($5.50) abatement of the minimum monthly charge.
Fire Lines
Size of connection Monthly Amount Per Inch of the Size of the Connection to the Main
City County
2 inch $0.84 per inch $1.13 per inch 17.16.520
3 inch $1.68 per inch $2.27 per inch 17.16.520
4 inch $2.62 per inch $3.54 per inch 17.16.520
6 inch $5.23 per inch $7.06 per inch 17.16.520
8 inch $8.38 per inch $11.31 per inch 17.16.520
10 inch $12.04 per inch $16.25 per inch 17.16.520
12 inch $17.67 per inch $23.85 per inch 17.16.520
Water Meter Rates
Account Type Amount Used Volumetric Rate
City County
Single family residence
Block 1:
0-5 hundred
cubic feet
$2.84 $3.83
Block 2:
6-10 hundred
cubic feet (except as
increased for Urban
Vegetable Gardens)
$3.49 $4.71
Block 3:
11-40 hundred
cubic feet
$4.46 $6.02
Block 4:
>40 hundred
cubic feet
$4.92 $6.64
Duplex residence / or Single
residence with Accessory Dwelling
Unit
Block 1:
0-10 hundred
cubic feet
$2.84 $3.83
Block 2:
11-20 hundred
cubic feet
$3.49 $4.71
Block 3:
21-80 hundred
cubic feet
$4.46 $6.02
Block 4:
>80 hundred
cubic feet
$4.92 $6.64
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 48
EXHIBIT A
Triplex residence
Block 1:
0-15 hundred
cubic feet
$2.84 $3.83
Block 2:
16-30 hundred
cubic feet
$3.49 $4.71
Block 3:
31-120 hundred
cubic feet
$4.46 $6.02
Block 4:
>120 hundred
cubic feet
$4.92 $6.64
City Rates County Rates
Summer Rate
(April - October)
Winter Rate
(November - March)
Summer Rate
(April - October)
Winter Rate
(November - March)
Multi-Family Residential 3.35 $2.18 $4.52 $2.94
Commercial and Non-Residential 3.53 $2.18 $4.77 $2.94
Note:
Customers with defective plumbing or unexplained deceases in usage of more than 25 percent may be adjusted back to a prior AWC, or be
assigned the class average by meter size. In cases where class average is not available or is not reasonable, the Director may use other
consumption information specific to such account to determine AWC.
The amount used is referred to as a block or tier rate.
Account Type Amount Used Volumetric Rate
Irrigation
City County
100 Cubic feet to
target budget $2.93 $3.96
Over target budget Up to
300% of target budget $4.09 $5.52
Over 300% of
target budget $4.30 $5.81
Note:
"Irrigation account" means an account established for applying water for irrigation and landscaping only, as determined by the Public Utilities
Director or designee.
"Target budget" means the estimated amount of water consumed per acre, as established by the Public Utilities Director or designee each year
for customer based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration, and considering efficient water practices. A different target
budget is established for each month of the irrigation season.
Account Type Amount Used Rate (Summer)Flat Rate (Winter)
Secondary Irrigation
Per Acre
Foot Per ccf Per Acre Foot Per ccf
0 Cubic feet to
target budget $285.32 $0.66
Over target budget Up to
300% of target budget $653.04 $1.50 $285.32 $0.66
Over 300% of
target budget $1,096.76 $2.52
Note:
"Secondary Irrigation account" means an account established for applying water for irrigation and landscaping secondary to the culinary water
system for select municipal parks and golf courses only, as determined by the Public Utilities Director or her designee.
"Target budget" means the estimated amount of water consumed per acre, as established by the Public Utilities Director or designee each year
for customer based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration, and considering efficient water practices. A different target
budget is established for each month of the irrigation season.
Miscellaneous Fees City County
Urban Vegetable Garden Credit Adjustment Credit per
ordinance NA Based on garden size 17.16.685
Deposit for water - residential $75 $75 17.16.380
Deposit for water - business $100 $100 Retail, warehouse, offices 17.16.380
Deposit for water - small restaurants $150 $150 17.16.380
Deposit for water - Laundromats, large restaurants $300 $300 17.16.380
Deposit for water - car washes $600 $600 17.16.380
Meter Test Fee - 5/8" to 1"$145 17.16.050
Meter Test Fee - 1 1/2" to 2"$290 17.16.050
Meter Test Fee - larger than 2"Actual costs 17.16.050
Water turn on - turn off $30 17.16.660
Illegal turn on fee $80 $80 17.16.660
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 49
Bankruptcy deposit
Highest two monthly bills over
the previous 12 months
period
17.16.660
Charges for water Minimum charges apply See Section 17.16.590 17.16.590
Damage to padlock, inline lock or lock out sleeve Actual costs 17.16.050
Deposit for fire hydrant meter $1,000 $100 not refundable 17.16.050
Opt-out of Advance Metering Infrastructure (AMI) -monthly fee $40 17.16.050
Rain Barrel Actual Costs Plus sales tax
Grass Seed Actual Costs Plus sales tax
Unauthorized meter, hydrant, or utility access
First incident $500 17.16.810
Subsequent incidents previous charge + $500 17.16.810
Plumber or Contractor First incident $1,000 17.16.110
Plumber or Contractor Subsequent incidents previous charge +$500 17.16.110
Construction Water - Fill-up at Department on Public Utilities $50 Includes 4 fill-ups at Public Utilities shops
Canyon water surplus sales (for contracts that are not tied to the rate established by the average MWDSLS rate paid by SLC)
Contract volume 800 gallons per day $415.65 per year or current
MWDSLS rate 17.04.030
Contract volume 400 gallons per day $207.83 per year or current
MWDSLS rate 17.04.030
Water Connection Fees - Contact 801.483.6727 17.16.040
Classification Dwelling Meter Size
City
Connection
Fee**
County
Connection
Fee**
Meter Hardware &
Installation Fee*
Residential
Single family 3/4 inch $1,871.00 $1,952.00 *See Note - actual cost
Single family 1 inch $3,297.00 $3,494.00 *See Note - actual cost
Duplex 1 inch $2,234.00 $2,432.00 *See Note - actual cost
Triplex 1 inch $2,371.00 $2,492.00 *See Note - actual cost
Fourplex 1 inch $3,401.00 $3,580.00 *See Note - actual cost
Commercial/Industrial Culinary Meter
3/4 inch $2,000.00 $2,125.00 *See Note - actual cost
1 inch $3,830.00 $4,213.00 *See Note - actual cost
1.5 inch $7,584.00 $8,322.00 *See Note - actual cost
2 inch $11,776.00 $12,834.00 *See Note - actual cost
3 inch $23,678.00 $25,838.00 *See Note - actual cost
4 inch $27,359.00 $27,359.00 *See Note - actual cost
6 inch $54,718.00 $54,718.00 *See Note - actual cost
8 inch $87,549.00 $87,549.00 *See Note - actual cost
* Cost includes actual hardware cost, meter construction costs, labor costs, and one inspection. Price will be provided upon request.
**Meters not listed will be charged at actual hardware cost, inspection fees, and applicable resource and impact fees.
***For meters 4-inches and larger a water resource fee shall be added. The fee is based on the ratio of the projected usage (gpd) as determined by the AWWA
M-22 method to the equivalent residential unit amount of 449 gpd multiplied by $106.
Fire Service Connection Charges *** Contact number 801.483.6727
Detector check - Fee listed does not include hardware and meter. Any hardware and meter to be charged at actual cost.
6-inch Price upon request Not allowed for new development or redevelopment - replacement only.17.16.050
8-inch $3,334.20 17.16.050
10-inch $5,272.02 17.16.050
Fire Lines -Fee listed does not include hardware and meter. Any hardware and meter to be charged at actual cost.
2-inch $355.00 17.16.050
4-inch $355.00 17.16.050
6-inch $601.00 17.16.050
8-inch $819.00 17.16.050
10-inch $1,091.00 17.16.050
12-inch $1,309.00 17.16.050
Water Inspection Fees ***Contact number 801.483.6727
New hydrant inspection $135.00 Per each inspection 17.16.050
New hydrant inspection - Long $240.00 Per each inspection 17.16.050
Water inspection fees $110.00 New installation, repair, service, or terminate (kill) inspection;
Per each inspection or trip 17.16.050
Relocation of hydrant inspection $220.00 Includes move and terminate 17.16.050
Relocation of water meter inspection $220.00 Includes move and terminate 17.16.050
Water Used During Construction
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 50
Residential Metered Rates 17.16.350
Commercial Metered rates 17.16.350
Other Water Utility Fees
Water Pressure Test (Flow Test) for Water Mains under 12"$455.00 Per Test 17.16.050
Water Pressure Test (Flow Test) for water mains greater than 12:$800.00 Per Test 17.16.050
Kills - Meters under 3"$55.00 17.16.050
Kills - Meters 3" or larger $160.00 17.16.050
Inspect Auto Fire Sprinklers less than 2"$136.00 Per Inspection 17.16.040
Inspect Auto Fire Sprinklers 2" or greater $369.00 Per Inspection 17.16.040
Plan Review Fee - Less than 1 acre $216.00 Per Review 17.16.050
Plan Review Fee - Tenant Remodel/Residential Remodel $39.00 Per Review 17.16.050
Plan Review Fee - 1 - 5 acres $1,060.00 Per Review 17.16.350
Plan Review Fee - Greater than 5 acres $2,124.00 Per Review 17.16.050
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 51
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1
No. of ____ 2026 2
3
(Amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule Related to Fire Line Fees) 4
5
An ordinance amending fees and fee information in the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee 6
Schedule related to certain fire line fees. 7
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011 the City Council adopted Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24 8
and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule; and 9
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule has since been amended from 10
time to time; and 11
WHEREAS, it is now proposed that the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule be 12
amended to include, eliminate, or otherwise modify fees and fee information regarding certain 13
fire lines as shown in the attached Exhibit “A”; and 14
WHEREAS, the City Council held a hearing regarding this proposed ordinance that 15
amends the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule on ________________; and 16
WHEREAS, the City Council finds (i) the fees set forth in Exhibit A are necessary, 17
reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service costs incurred by the City; and (ii) 18
adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the 19
citizens of Salt Lake City. 20
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 21
SECTION 1. That the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is, 22
amended in pertinent part as set forth in the attached Exhibit “A”. 23
SECTION 2. That a revised copy of the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule that 24
reflects the amendments set forth in the attached Exhibit “A” shall be published on the official 25
Salt Lake City website. 26
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective upon publication. 27
28
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of _________, 2026. 29
30
31
______________________________________ 32
CHAIRPERSON 33
ATTEST: 34
35
36
_________________________ 37
CITY RECORDER 38
39
40
Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________. 41
42
Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed. 43
44
45
46
_______________________________________ 47
MAYOR 48
49
50
_________________________ 51
CITY RECORDER 52
53
54
(SEAL) 55
56
Bill No. _______ of 2026. 57
Published: __________________ 58
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
By: ___________________________
Jaysen Oldroyd
Date: ______________________
WATER
For questions regarding Water fees contact: 801.483.6900
Service Fee
Monthly Service Fee
Size of connection Monthly Amount
City County
5/8 inch - 3/4 inch $22.48 $30.35 17.16.670
1 inch $28.57 $38.57 17.16.670
1 1/2 inch $43.66 $58.94 17.16.670
2 inch $61.85 $83.50 17.16.670
3 inch $110.40 $149.04 17.16.670
4 inch $164.95 $222.68 17.16.670
6 inch $316.43 $427.18 17.16.670
8 inch $498.28 $672.68 17.16.670
10 inch $710.49 $959.16 17.16.670
12 inch $1,036.26 $1,398.95 17.16.670
Fire Hydrant $399.49 $539.31 17.16.590
Low Income Abatement: Customer who are granted abatement for taxes
on their dwelling shall be granted a five dollar fifty cent ($5.50) abatement of the minimum monthly charge.
Fire Lines
Size of connection Monthly Amount Per Inch of the Size of the Connection to the Main
City County
2 inch $0.84 per inch $1.13 per inch 17.16.520
3 inch $1.68 per inch $2.27 per inch 17.16.520
4 inch $2.62 per inch $3.54 per inch 17.16.520
6 inch $5.23 per inch $7.06 per inch 17.16.520
8 inch $8.38 per inch $11.31 per inch 17.16.520
10 inch $12.04 per inch $16.25 per inch 17.16.520
12 inch $17.67 per inch $23.85 per inch 17.16.520
Water Meter Rates
Account Type Amount Used Volumetric Rate
City County
Single family residence
Block 1:
0-5 hundred
cubic feet
$2.84 $3.83
Block 2:
6-10 hundred
cubic feet (except as
increased for Urban
Vegetable Gardens)
$3.49 $4.71
Block 3:
11-40 hundred
cubic feet
$4.46 $6.02
Block 4:
>40 hundred
cubic feet
$4.92 $6.64
Duplex residence / or Single
residence with Accessory Dwelling
Unit
Block 1:
0-10 hundred
cubic feet
$2.84 $3.83
Block 2:
11-20 hundred
cubic feet
$3.49 $4.71
Block 3:
21-80 hundred
cubic feet
$4.46 $6.02
Block 4:
>80 hundred
cubic feet
$4.92 $6.64
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 48
EXHIBIT A
Triplex residence
Block 1:
0-15 hundred
cubic feet
$2.84 $3.83
Block 2:
16-30 hundred
cubic feet
$3.49 $4.71
Block 3:
31-120 hundred
cubic feet
$4.46 $6.02
Block 4:
>120 hundred
cubic feet
$4.92 $6.64
City Rates County Rates
Summer Rate
(April - October)
Winter Rate
(November - March)
Summer Rate
(April - October)
Winter Rate
(November - March)
Multi-Family Residential 3.35 $2.18 $4.52 $2.94
Commercial and Non-Residential 3.53 $2.18 $4.77 $2.94
Note:
Customers with defective plumbing or unexplained deceases in usage of more than 25 percent may be adjusted back to a prior AWC, or be
assigned the class average by meter size. In cases where class average is not available or is not reasonable, the Director may use other
consumption information specific to such account to determine AWC.
The amount used is referred to as a block or tier rate.
Account Type Amount Used Volumetric Rate
Irrigation
City County
100 Cubic feet to
target budget $2.93 $3.96
Over target budget Up to
300% of target budget $4.09 $5.52
Over 300% of
target budget $4.30 $5.81
Note:
"Irrigation account" means an account established for applying water for irrigation and landscaping only, as determined by the Public Utilities
Director or designee.
"Target budget" means the estimated amount of water consumed per acre, as established by the Public Utilities Director or designee each year
for customer based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration, and considering efficient water practices. A different target
budget is established for each month of the irrigation season.
Account Type Amount Used Rate (Summer)Flat Rate (Winter)
Secondary Irrigation
Per Acre
Foot Per ccf Per Acre Foot Per ccf
0 Cubic feet to
target budget $285.32 $0.66
Over target budget Up to
300% of target budget $653.04 $1.50 $285.32 $0.66
Over 300% of
target budget $1,096.76 $2.52
Note:
"Secondary Irrigation account" means an account established for applying water for irrigation and landscaping secondary to the culinary water
system for select municipal parks and golf courses only, as determined by the Public Utilities Director or her designee.
"Target budget" means the estimated amount of water consumed per acre, as established by the Public Utilities Director or designee each year
for customer based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration, and considering efficient water practices. A different target
budget is established for each month of the irrigation season.
Miscellaneous Fees City County
Urban Vegetable Garden Credit Adjustment Credit per
ordinance NA Based on garden size 17.16.685
Deposit for water - residential $75 $75 17.16.380
Deposit for water - business $100 $100 Retail, warehouse, offices 17.16.380
Deposit for water - small restaurants $150 $150 17.16.380
Deposit for water - Laundromats, large restaurants $300 $300 17.16.380
Deposit for water - car washes $600 $600 17.16.380
Meter Test Fee - 5/8" to 1"$145 17.16.050
Meter Test Fee - 1 1/2" to 2"$290 17.16.050
Meter Test Fee - larger than 2"Actual costs 17.16.050
Water turn on - turn off $30 17.16.660
Illegal turn on fee $80 $80 17.16.660
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 49
Bankruptcy deposit
Highest two monthly bills over
the previous 12 months
period
17.16.660
Charges for water Minimum charges apply See Section 17.16.590 17.16.590
Damage to padlock, inline lock or lock out sleeve Actual costs 17.16.050
Deposit for fire hydrant meter $1,000 $100 not refundable 17.16.050
Opt-out of Advance Metering Infrastructure (AMI) -monthly fee $40 17.16.050
Rain Barrel Actual Costs Plus sales tax
Grass Seed Actual Costs Plus sales tax
Unauthorized meter, hydrant, or utility access
First incident $500 17.16.810
Subsequent incidents previous charge + $500 17.16.810
Plumber or Contractor First incident $1,000 17.16.110
Plumber or Contractor Subsequent incidents previous charge +$500 17.16.110
Construction Water - Fill-up at Department on Public Utilities $50 Includes 4 fill-ups at Public Utilities shops
Canyon water surplus sales (for contracts that are not tied to the rate established by the average MWDSLS rate paid by SLC)
Contract volume 800 gallons per day $415.65 per year or current
MWDSLS rate 17.04.030
Contract volume 400 gallons per day $207.83 per year or current
MWDSLS rate 17.04.030
Water Connection Fees - Contact 801.483.6727 17.16.040
Classification Dwelling Meter Size
City
Connection
Fee**
County
Connection
Fee**
Meter Hardware &
Installation Fee*
Residential
Single family 3/4 inch $1,871.00 $1,952.00 *See Note - actual cost
Single family 1 inch $3,297.00 $3,494.00 *See Note - actual cost
Duplex 1 inch $2,234.00 $2,432.00 *See Note - actual cost
Triplex 1 inch $2,371.00 $2,492.00 *See Note - actual cost
Fourplex 1 inch $3,401.00 $3,580.00 *See Note - actual cost
Commercial/Industrial Culinary Meter
3/4 inch $2,000.00 $2,125.00 *See Note - actual cost
1 inch $3,830.00 $4,213.00 *See Note - actual cost
1.5 inch $7,584.00 $8,322.00 *See Note - actual cost
2 inch $11,776.00 $12,834.00 *See Note - actual cost
3 inch $23,678.00 $25,838.00 *See Note - actual cost
4 inch $27,359.00 $27,359.00 *See Note - actual cost
6 inch $54,718.00 $54,718.00 *See Note - actual cost
8 inch $87,549.00 $87,549.00 *See Note - actual cost
* Cost includes actual hardware cost, meter construction costs, labor costs, and one inspection. Price will be provided upon request.
**Meters not listed will be charged at actual hardware cost, inspection fees, and applicable resource and impact fees.
***For meters 4-inches and larger a water resource fee shall be added. The fee is based on the ratio of the projected usage (gpd) as determined by the AWWA
M-22 method to the equivalent residential unit amount of 449 gpd multiplied by $106.
Fire Service Connection Charges *** Contact number 801.483.6727
Detector check - Fee listed does not include hardware and meter. Any hardware and meter to be charged at actual cost.
6-inch Price upon request Not allowed for new development or redevelopment - replacement only.17.16.050
8-inch $3,334.20 17.16.050
10-inch $5,272.02 17.16.050
Fire Lines -Fee listed does not include hardware and meter. Any hardware and meter to be charged at actual cost.
2-inch $355.00 17.16.050
4-inch $355.00 17.16.050
6-inch $601.00 17.16.050
8-inch $819.00 17.16.050
10-inch $1,091.00 17.16.050
12-inch $1,309.00 17.16.050
Water Inspection Fees ***Contact number 801.483.6727
New hydrant inspection $135.00 Per each inspection 17.16.050
New hydrant inspection - Long $240.00 Per each inspection 17.16.050
Water inspection fees $110.00 New installation, repair, service, or terminate (kill) inspection;
Per each inspection or trip 17.16.050
Relocation of hydrant inspection $220.00 Includes move and terminate 17.16.050
Relocation of water meter inspection $220.00 Includes move and terminate 17.16.050
Water Used During Construction
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 50
Residential Metered Rates 17.16.350
Commercial Metered rates 17.16.350
Other Water Utility Fees
Water Pressure Test (Flow Test) for Water Mains under 12"$455.00 Per Test 17.16.050
Water Pressure Test (Flow Test) for water mains greater than 12:$800.00 Per Test 17.16.050
Kills - Meters under 3"$55.00 17.16.050
Kills - Meters 3" or larger $160.00 17.16.050
Inspect Auto Fire Sprinklers less than 2"$136.00 Per Inspection 17.16.040
Inspect Auto Fire Sprinklers 2" or greater $369.00 Per Inspection 17.16.040
Plan Review Fee - Less than 1 acre $216.00 Per Review 17.16.050
Plan Review Fee - Tenant Remodel/Residential Remodel $39.00 Per Review 17.16.050
Plan Review Fee - 1 - 5 acres $1,060.00 Per Review 17.16.350
Plan Review Fee - Greater than 5 acres $2,124.00 Per Review 17.16.050
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 51
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
08/28/2025
Date Sent to Council:
09/03/2025
From:
Department *
Public Utilities
Employee Name:
Jorgensen, Jacob
E-mail
jacob.jorgensen@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
08/28/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
09/02/2025
Subject:
CFS Correction - Missing Title and Description
Additional Staff Contact:
Lisa Tarufelli - Lisa.Tarufelli@slc.govBriefer, Laura - Laura.Briefer@slc.gov
Presenters/Staff Table
Lisa Tarufelli - Lisa.Tarufelli@slc.govBriefer, Laura - Laura.Briefer@slc.govJacob Jorgensen - jacob.jorgensen@slc.gov
Document Type
Ordinance
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Budget Impact:
Approximately $740,237 in uncollected revenue that was budgeted for and rates set to collect.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve adding the Title "Fire Lines" and the Description "Per Inch" which was inadvertently left off of one of the rate tables in the CFS. The title "fire lines" was included in the original submission to the City Council and the rates are being applied the same as they have been historically, which is per inch size of the connection since 1981. This was updated as part of the comprehensive rate study for Water.
Background/Discussion
These rates were presented as part of the rate study to City Council and the public and published as part of the update rates for Public Utilities. The fee for fire lines is contained in Ordinance 17.16.520 and has been established since at least 1981 (last date of record that we've been able to confirm) and has always been charged per inch size of the connection.since t change the way the rate is applied and the rate study simply updated the cost of service to establish the new rate amount.
The rate table itself is published in the CFS, however, without the title and description customers are unaware that it applies to fire lines. This is what we would like to have corrected to avoid any confusion from the customers and correct this error in the published CFS.
I have included as attachments the updated redlined CFS and the final rates published from the Water Rate Study.
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
This was presented as part of the rate study to City Council and the public and published as part of the update rates for Public Utilities. The fee for fire lines is contained in Ordinance 17.16.520 and has been established since at least 1981 (last date of record that we've been able to confirm). Legal has reviewed this and the rate is allowable and part of this correction could have been done using "scrivener's error" since the title "Fire Lines" was in the redlined CFS. However, since the description was left off of how the rate is applied, we are correcting both parts through this process of City Council approval of a CFS change.
This page has intentionally been left blank
WATER
For questions regarding Water fees contact: 801.483.6900
Service Fee
Monthly Service Fee
Size of connection Monthly Amount
City County
5/8 inch - 3/4 inch $22.48 $30.35 17.16.670
1 inch $28.57 $38.57 17.16.670
1 1/2 inch $43.66 $58.94 17.16.670
2 inch $61.85 $83.50 17.16.670
3 inch $110.40 $149.04 17.16.670
4 inch $164.95 $222.68 17.16.670
6 inch $316.43 $427.18 17.16.670
8 inch $498.28 $672.68 17.16.670
10 inch $710.49 $959.16 17.16.670
12 inch $1,036.26 $1,398.95 17.16.670
Fire Hydrant $399.49 $539.31 17.16.590
Low Income Abatement: Customer who are granted abatement for taxes
on their dwelling shall be granted a five dollar fifty cent ($5.50) abatement of the minimum monthly charge.
Fire Lines
Size of connection Monthly Amount per inch
City County
2 inch $0.84 $1.13 17.16.520
3 inch $1.68 $2.27 17.16.520
4 inch $2.62 $3.54 17.16.520
6 inch $5.23 $7.06 17.16.520
8 inch $8.38 $11.31 17.16.520
10 inch $12.04 $16.25 17.16.520
12 inch $17.67 $23.85 17.16.520
Water Meter Rates
Account Type Amount Used Volumetric Rate
City County
Single family residence
Block 1:
0-5 hundred
cubic feet
$2.84 $3.83
Block 2:
6-10 hundred
cubic feet (except as
increased for Urban
Vegetable Gardens)
$3.49 $4.71
Block 3:
11-40 hundred
cubic feet
$4.46 $6.02
Block 4:
>40 hundred
cubic feet
$4.92 $6.64
Duplex residence / or Single
residence with Accessory Dwelling
Unit
Block 1:
0-10 hundred
cubic feet
$2.84 $3.83
Block 2:
11-20 hundred
cubic feet
$3.49 $4.71
Block 3:
21-80 hundred
cubic feet
$4.46 $6.02
Block 4:
>80 hundred
cubic feet
$4.92 $6.64
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 48
EXHIBIT A
Triplex residence
Block 1:
0-15 hundred
cubic feet
$2.84 $3.83
Block 2:
16-30 hundred
cubic feet
$3.49 $4.71
Block 3:
31-120 hundred
cubic feet
$4.46 $6.02
Block 4:
>120 hundred
cubic feet
$4.92 $6.64
City Rates County Rates
Summer Rate
(April - October)
Winter Rate
(November - March)
Summer Rate
(April - October)
Winter Rate
(November - March)
Multi-Family Residential 3.35 $2.18 $4.52 $2.94
Commercial and Non-Residential 3.53 $2.18 $4.77 $2.94
Note:
Customers with defective plumbing or unexplained deceases in usage of more than 25 percent may be adjusted back to a prior AWC, or be
assigned the class average by meter size. In cases where class average is not available or is not reasonable, the Director may use other
consumption information specific to such account to determine AWC.
The amount used is referred to as a block or tier rate.
Account Type Amount Used Volumetric Rate
Irrigation
City County
100 Cubic feet to
target budget $2.93 $3.96
Over target budget Up to
300% of target budget $4.09 $5.52
Over 300% of
target budget $4.30 $5.81
Note:
"Irrigation account" means an account established for applying water for irrigation and landscaping only, as determined by the Public Utilities
Director or designee.
"Target budget" means the estimated amount of water consumed per acre, as established by the Public Utilities Director or designee each year
for customer based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration, and considering efficient water practices. A different target
budget is established for each month of the irrigation season.
Account Type Amount Used Rate (Summer)Flat Rate (Winter)
Secondary Irrigation
Per Acre
Foot Per ccf Per Acre Foot Per ccf
0 Cubic feet to
target budget $285.32 $0.66
Over target budget Up to
300% of target budget $653.04 $1.50 $285.32 $0.66
Over 300% of
target budget $1,096.76 $2.52
Note:
"Secondary Irrigation account" means an account established for applying water for irrigation and landscaping secondary to the culinary water
system for select municipal parks and golf courses only, as determined by the Public Utilities Director or her designee.
"Target budget" means the estimated amount of water consumed per acre, as established by the Public Utilities Director or designee each year
for customer based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration, and considering efficient water practices. A different target
budget is established for each month of the irrigation season.
Miscellaneous Fees City County
Urban Vegetable Garden Credit Adjustment Credit per
ordinance NA Based on garden size 17.16.685
Deposit for water - residential $75 $75 17.16.380
Deposit for water - business $100 $100 Retail, warehouse, offices 17.16.380
Deposit for water - small restaurants $150 $150 17.16.380
Deposit for water - Laundromats, large restaurants $300 $300 17.16.380
Deposit for water - car washes $600 $600 17.16.380
Meter Test Fee - 5/8" to 1"$145 17.16.050
Meter Test Fee - 1 1/2" to 2"$290 17.16.050
Meter Test Fee - larger than 2"Actual costs 17.16.050
Water turn on - turn off $30 17.16.660
Illegal turn on fee $80 $80 17.16.660
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 49
Bankruptcy deposit
Highest two monthly bills over
the previous 12 months
period
17.16.660
Charges for water Minimum charges apply See Section 17.16.590 17.16.590
Damage to padlock, inline lock or lock out sleeve Actual costs 17.16.050
Deposit for fire hydrant meter $1,000 $100 not refundable 17.16.050
Opt-out of Advance Metering Infrastructure (AMI) -monthly fee $40 17.16.050
Rain Barrel Actual Costs Plus sales tax
Grass Seed Actual Costs Plus sales tax
Unauthorized meter, hydrant, or utility access
First incident $500 17.16.810
Subsequent incidents previous charge + $500 17.16.810
Plumber or Contractor First incident $1,000 17.16.110
Plumber or Contractor Subsequent incidents previous charge +$500 17.16.110
Construction Water - Fill-up at Department on Public Utilities $50 Includes 4 fill-ups at Public Utilities shops
Canyon water surplus sales (for contracts that are not tied to the rate established by the average MWDSLS rate paid by SLC)
Contract volume 800 gallons per day $415.65 per year or current
MWDSLS rate 17.04.030
Contract volume 400 gallons per day $207.83 per year or current
MWDSLS rate 17.04.030
Water Connection Fees - Contact 801.483.6727 17.16.040
Classification Dwelling Meter Size
City
Connection
Fee**
County
Connection
Fee**
Meter Hardware &
Installation Fee*
Residential
Single family 3/4 inch $1,871.00 $1,952.00 *See Note - actual cost
Single family 1 inch $3,297.00 $3,494.00 *See Note - actual cost
Duplex 1 inch $2,234.00 $2,432.00 *See Note - actual cost
Triplex 1 inch $2,371.00 $2,492.00 *See Note - actual cost
Fourplex 1 inch $3,401.00 $3,580.00 *See Note - actual cost
Commercial/Industrial Culinary Meter
3/4 inch $2,000.00 $2,125.00 *See Note - actual cost
1 inch $3,830.00 $4,213.00 *See Note - actual cost
1.5 inch $7,584.00 $8,322.00 *See Note - actual cost
2 inch $11,776.00 $12,834.00 *See Note - actual cost
3 inch $23,678.00 $25,838.00 *See Note - actual cost
4 inch $27,359.00 $27,359.00 *See Note - actual cost
6 inch $54,718.00 $54,718.00 *See Note - actual cost
8 inch $87,549.00 $87,549.00 *See Note - actual cost
* Cost includes actual hardware cost, meter construction costs, labor costs, and one inspection. Price will be provided upon request.
**Meters not listed will be charged at actual hardware cost, inspection fees, and applicable resource and impact fees.
***For meters 4-inches and larger a water resource fee shall be added. The fee is based on the ratio of the projected usage (gpd) as determined by the AWWA
M-22 method to the equivalent residential unit amount of 449 gpd multiplied by $106.
Fire Service Connection Charges *** Contact number 801.483.6727
Detector check - Fee listed does not include hardware and meter. Any hardware and meter to be charged at actual cost.
6-inch Price upon request Not allowed for new development or redevelopment - replacement only.17.16.050
8-inch $3,334.20 17.16.050
10-inch $5,272.02 17.16.050
Fire Lines -Fee listed does not include hardware and meter. Any hardware and meter to be charged at actual cost.
2-inch $355.00 17.16.050
4-inch $355.00 17.16.050
6-inch $601.00 17.16.050
8-inch $819.00 17.16.050
10-inch $1,091.00 17.16.050
12-inch $1,309.00 17.16.050
Water Inspection Fees ***Contact number 801.483.6727
New hydrant inspection $135.00 Per each inspection 17.16.050
New hydrant inspection - Long $240.00 Per each inspection 17.16.050
Water inspection fees $110.00 New installation, repair, service, or terminate (kill) inspection;
Per each inspection or trip 17.16.050
Relocation of hydrant inspection $220.00 Includes move and terminate 17.16.050
Relocation of water meter inspection $220.00 Includes move and terminate 17.16.050
Water Used During Construction
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 50
Residential Metered Rates 17.16.350
Commercial Metered rates 17.16.350
Other Water Utility Fees
Water Pressure Test (Flow Test) for Water Mains under 12"$455.00 Per Test 17.16.050
Water Pressure Test (Flow Test) for water mains greater than 12:$800.00 Per Test 17.16.050
Kills - Meters under 3"$55.00 17.16.050
Kills - Meters 3" or larger $160.00 17.16.050
Inspect Auto Fire Sprinklers less than 2"$136.00 Per Inspection 17.16.040
Inspect Auto Fire Sprinklers 2" or greater $369.00 Per Inspection 17.16.040
Plan Review Fee - Less than 1 acre $216.00 Per Review 17.16.050
Plan Review Fee - Tenant Remodel/Residential Remodel $39.00 Per Review 17.16.050
Plan Review Fee - 1 - 5 acres $1,060.00 Per Review 17.16.350
Plan Review Fee - Greater than 5 acres $2,124.00 Per Review 17.16.050
Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 51
This page has intentionally been left blank
Fixed Rate
All Customers
5/8" - 3/4"$22.48
1"$28.57
1.5"$43.66
2"$61.85
3"$110.40
4"$164.95
6"$316.43
8"$498.28
10"$710.49
12"$1,036.26
Fire Lines per inch
2"$0.84
3"$1.68
4"$2.62
6"$5.23
8"$8.38
10"$12.04
12"$17.67
Volumetric Rates
Residential (Up to 3 units, tier thresholds x unit)
Block 1 (0-5 CCF)$2.84
$3.49
$4.46
$4.92
Non-Residential
Summer $3.53
Winter $2.18
Multi-Family (4 or more units)
Summer $3.35
Winter $2.18
Irrigation
Up to target budget $2.93
$4.09
Over 300% of target $4.30
County Rates - Monthly
Fixed Rate
All Customers
5/8" - 3/4"$30.35
1"$38.57
1.5"$58.94
2"$83.50
3"$149.04
4"$222.69
6"$427.18
8"$672.67
10"$959.16
12"$1,398.95
Fire Lines per inch
2"$1.13
3"$2.27
4"$3.54
6"$7.06
8"$11.31
10"$16.25
12"$23.85
Volumetric Rates
Residential (Up to 3 units, tier thresholds x unit)
Block 1 (0-5 CCF)$3.83
$4.71
$6.02
$6.64
Non-Residential
Summer $4.77
Winter $2.94
Multi-Family (4 or more units)
Summer $4.52
Winter $2.94
Irrigation
Up to target budget $3.96
$5.52
$5.81
This page has intentionally been left blank
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of ____ 2025
(Amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule Related to Fire Line Fees)
An ordinance amending fees and fee information in the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee
Schedule related to certain fire line fees.
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011 the City Council adopted Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24
and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule has since been amended from
time to time; and
WHEREAS, it is now proposed that the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule be
amended to include, eliminate, or otherwise modify fees and fee information regarding certain
fire lines as shown in the attached Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds (i) the fees set forth in Exhibit A are necessary,
reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service costs incurred by the City; and (ii)
adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the
citizens of Salt Lake City.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. That the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is,
amended in pertinent part as set forth in the attached Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 2. That a revised copy of the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule that
reflects the amendments set forth in the attached Exhibit “A” shall be published on the official
Salt Lake City website.
SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective upon publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of _________, 2025.
______________________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________.
Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed.
_______________________________________
MAYOR
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _______ of 2025.
Published: __________________
Approved As To Form
By: ___________________________
Jaysen Oldroyd
Date: _______9/3/2025___________
This page has intentionally been left blank
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: City Staff
DATE:January 13, 2026
RE: Nomination of Council Chair and Vice Chair for Calendar Year 2026
MOTION 1
I move that the Council ratify the nominations of Council Member ________ as Chair and Council
Member ________ as Vice Chair for calendar year 2026.
Item F1
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:Allison Rowland, Senior Policy Analyst
DATE:January 13, 2026
RE: ORDINANCE: CONSOLIDATED FEE SCHEDULE AMENDMENT FOR THE PUBLIC
LANDS DEPARTMENT
MOTION 1 – ADOPT ORDINANCE
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance adopting amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee
Schedule related to credit card surcharges in the Public Lands Department.
MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT ORDINANCE
I move that the Council not adopt the ordinance and move on to the next item.
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Allison Rowland, Senior Policy Analyst
DATE:December 9, 2025
RE: ORDINANCE: CONSOLIDATED FEE SCHEDULE AMENDMENT FOR THE PUBLIC
LANDS DEPARTMENT
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Department of Public Lands (DPL) has proposed minor changes to the Consolidated Fee Schedule, adding
the OpenCounter payment system to the list of programs exempt from charging credit card use fees. These
changes would formalize the exemption of 2.4% credit card surcharges on payments for all transactions
processed through OpenCounter, including: special event permitting; special event cost recovery; and urban
forestry mitigation fees. These credit card surcharges were not charged in the past because the third-party
payment providers in use do not have the ability to distinguish a credit card transaction from a debit or e-check
payment.
DPL calculated that if the surcharges were in place, it would result in about $10,000 in annual revenue. The
Department suggests that the activation of public spaces through special events, along with other potential
economic benefits, is likely to compensate the City for this amount of forgone revenue. The urban forestry
mitigation fees tend to amount to only small share of the total fees forgone every year (for example, $900 in
2025).
Goal of the briefing: Consider whether to support the proposal to formalize exemptions from credit card
surcharges used to pay for certain transactions related to the Department of Public Lands.
Item Schedule:
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
11/24/2025
Date Sent to Council:
12/01/2025
From:
Department *
Public Lands
Employee Name:
Romero, Maria
E-mail
maria.romero@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
11/24/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
12/01/2025
Subject:
FY25-26 Consolidated fee schedule ordinance amendment related to credit card use surcharge fee for certain transactions in the Public LandsDepartment
New transmittal or
Revision
New transmittal
Revision
Revision Updates:
Including background information section.
Additional Staff Contact:
Gregg Evans, Finance Manager Gregg.Evans@slc.govKim Shelley, Public Lands Director Kim.Shelley@slc.govTyler Murdock, Public Lands Deputy Director, Tyler.Murdock@slc.gov
Presenters/Staff Table
Gregg Evans, Finance ManagerKim Shelley, Public Lands Director Tyler Murdock, Deputy Director
Document Type
Ordinance
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
Adopt the ordinance amending the FY25-26 Consolidated Fee Schedule to provide an exemption to credit card use surcharge fees for certain transactions in the Public Lands Department.
Background/Discussion
Public Lands contracts with OpenCounter to process payments for special event permitting, special events cost recovery, and urban forestry mitigation fees. The OpenCounter system processes payments using a third-party processor (Stripe). The OpenCounter system was implemented several years ago and has not been charging the credit card surcharge fee since its inception. This ordinance amends the Consolidated Fee Schedule to add the OpenCounter system to the list of existing programs exempt from charging the credit card use surcharge fee. By waiving the credit card surcharge fee for OpenCounter we estimate the cost to the City would be around $10,000 annually. Special events activate many City open spaces and properties, several of these events provide other economic benefits that could o ffset this cost.
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
This page has intentionally been left blank
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of ____ 2025
(Amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule Related to Credit Card
Surcharges for Certain Transactions in the Public Lands Department)
An ordinance amending fees and fee information in the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee
Schedule related to a surcharges on transactions involving the use of a credit card for certain
transactions in the Public Lands Department.
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011, the City Council adopted Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24
and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule sets forth various fees
charged by the city in connection with city services; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule has since been amended from
time to time; and
WHEREAS, it is now proposed that the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee schedule be
amended to include, eliminate, or otherwise modify fees and fee information regarding
surcharges on certain transactions involving the use of a credit card as shown in the attached
Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds (i) the fees set forth in Exhibit A are necessary,
reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service costs incurred by the City; and (ii)
adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the
citizens of Salt Lake City.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. That the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is,
amended in pertinent part as set forth in the attached Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 2. That a revised copy of the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule that
reflects the amendments set forth in the attached Exhibit “A” shall be published on the official
Salt Lake City website.
SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective upon publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of _________, 2025.
______________________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________.
Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed.
_______________________________________
MAYOR
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _______ of 2025.
Published: __________________
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
By: __/s/Cameron Johnson______
Cameron Johnson
Senior City Attorney
Date: ______________________
EXHIBIT “A”
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 Or the disputed fine amount if that amount is less than $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.
**ActiveNet, OpenCounter, 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
GENERAL FUNDS MISCELLANEOUS FEES
For questions regarding General Funds Miscellaneous Fees contact: TBD
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Collection Fee $64 3.16.050
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.
**ActiveNetMax Galaxy, OpenCounter, 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
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of ____ 2025
(Amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule Related to Administrative
Enforcement HearingsCredit Card Surcharges for Certain Transactions in the Public Lands
Department)
An ordinance amending fees and fee information in the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee
Schedule related to administrative enforcement hearingsa surcharges on transactions involving
the use of a credit card for certain transactions in the Public Lands Department.
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011 the City Council adopted Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24
and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule sets forth various fees
charged by the city in connection with city services; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule has since been amended from
time to time; and
WHEREAS, it is now proposed that the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee schedule be
amended to include, eliminate, or otherwise modify fees and fee information regarding
administrative enforcement hearingssurcharges on certain transactions involving the use of a
credit card as shown in the attached Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds (i) the fees set forth in Exhibit A are necessary,
reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service costs incurred by the City; and (ii)
adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the
citizens of Salt Lake City.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. That the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is,
amended in pertinent part as set forth in the attached Exhibit “A”.
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
SECTION 2. That a revised copy of the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule that
reflects the amendments set forth in the attached Exhibit “A” shall be published on the official
Salt Lake City website.
SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective upon publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of _________, 20252.
______________________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________.
Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed.
_______________________________________
MAYOR
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _______ of 2025.
Published: __________________
Approved As To Form
By: ___________________________
Jaysen OldroydCameron Johnson
Date: ______________________
EXHIBIT “A”
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 Or the disputed fine amount if that amount is less than $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 GalaxyActiveNet, OpenCounter, Sportsman software
and Library Parking Garage does not assess the credit card
3.16.060
Pedestrian Crosswalk Flags
Plain Orange Non-Reflective
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
This page has intentionally been left blank
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
10/31/2025
Date Sent to Council:
11/13/2025
From:
Department *
Public Lands
Employee Name:
Romero, Maria
E-mail
maria.romero@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
10/31/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
11/13/2025
Subject:
FY25-26 Consolidated fee schedule ordinance amendment related to credit card use surcharge fee for certain transactions in the Public LandsDepartment
Additional Staff Contact:
Gregg Evans, Finance Manager Gregg.Evans@slc.govKim Shelley, Public Lands Director Kim.Shelley@slc.govTyler Murdock, Public Lands Deputy Director, Tyler.Murdock@slc.gov
Presenters/Staff Table
Gregg Evans, Finance ManagerKim Shelley, Public Lands Director Tyler Murdock, Deputy Director
Document Type
Ordinance
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
Adopt the ordinance amending the FY25-26 Consolidated Fee Schedule to provide an exemption to credit card use surcharge fees for certain transactions in the Public Lands Department.
Background/Discussion
See first 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
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of ____ 2025
(Amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule Related to Credit Card
Surcharges for Certain Transactions in the Public Lands Department)
An ordinance amending fees and fee information in the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee
Schedule related to a surcharges on transactions involving the use of a credit card for certain
transactions in the Public Lands Department.
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011, the City Council adopted Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24
and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule sets forth various fees
charged by the city in connection with city services; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule has since been amended from
time to time; and
WHEREAS, it is now proposed that the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee schedule be
amended to include, eliminate, or otherwise modify fees and fee information regarding
surcharges on certain transactions involving the use of a credit card as shown in the attached
Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds (i) the fees set forth in Exhibit A are necessary,
reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service costs incurred by the City; and (ii)
adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the
citizens of Salt Lake City.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. That the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is,
amended in pertinent part as set forth in the attached Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 2. That a revised copy of the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule that
reflects the amendments set forth in the attached Exhibit “A” shall be published on the official
Salt Lake City website.
SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective upon publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of _________, 2025.
______________________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________.
Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed.
_______________________________________
MAYOR
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _______ of 2025.
Published: __________________
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
By: __/s/Cameron Johnson______
Cameron Johnson
Senior City Attorney
Date: ______________________
EXHIBIT “A”
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 Or the disputed fine amount if that amount is less than $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.
**ActiveNet, OpenCounter, 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
GENERAL FUNDS MISCELLANEOUS FEES
For questions regarding General Funds Miscellaneous Fees contact: TBD
Service Fee Additional Information Section
Collection Fee $64 3.16.050
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.
**ActiveNetMax Galaxy, OpenCounter, 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
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of ____ 2025
(Amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule Related to Administrative
Enforcement HearingsCredit Card Surcharges for Certain Transactions in the Public Lands
Department)
An ordinance amending fees and fee information in the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee
Schedule related to administrative enforcement hearingsa surcharges on transactions involving
the use of a credit card for certain transactions in the Public Lands Department.
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011 the City Council adopted Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24
and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule sets forth various fees
charged by the city in connection with city services; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule has since been amended from
time to time; and
WHEREAS, it is now proposed that the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee schedule be
amended to include, eliminate, or otherwise modify fees and fee information regarding
administrative enforcement hearingssurcharges on certain transactions involving the use of a
credit card as shown in the attached Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds (i) the fees set forth in Exhibit A are necessary,
reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service costs incurred by the City; and (ii)
adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the
citizens of Salt Lake City.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. That the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is,
amended in pertinent part as set forth in the attached Exhibit “A”.
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
SECTION 2. That a revised copy of the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule that
reflects the amendments set forth in the attached Exhibit “A” shall be published on the official
Salt Lake City website.
SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective upon publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of _________, 20252.
______________________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________.
Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed.
_______________________________________
MAYOR
_________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _______ of 2025.
Published: __________________
Approved As To Form
By: ___________________________
Jaysen OldroydCameron Johnson
Date: ______________________
EXHIBIT “A”
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 Or the disputed fine amount if that amount is less than $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 GalaxyActiveNet, OpenCounter, Sportsman software
and Library Parking Garage does not assess the credit card
3.16.060
Pedestrian Crosswalk Flags
Plain Orange Non-Reflective
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
This page has intentionally been left blank
1
Project Title: RMF 35 and RMF 45 Consolidation: Chapter
21A Assorted References
Petition No.: PLNPCM2024-01388
Version: City Council Amendment V2
Date Prepared: December 3, 2025
Planning Commission Action: Recommended Approval
This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summary purposes only):
1. Amends the titles found in the table of contents of 21A.24 to reflect the change moving the RMF-35
and RMF-45 zoning districts in a single chapter.
2. Amends Chapter 21A.22.010 to reflect the change moving the RMF-35 and RMF-45 zoning districts
in a single chapter.
3. Amends Chapter 21A.33.020 to update permitted and conditional land uses in both the RMF-35 and
RMF-45 zoning districts.
4. Amends Chapter 21A.34.020.M.2 to update section references.
5. Amends Table 21A.40.090 to update section references.
6. Amends Chapter 21A.44.060.A to update section references.
7. Amends Chapter 21A.44.080.B to update section references.
8. Amends Chapter 21A.52.050.G.2 to update section references.
9. Amends Chapter 21A.52.050.H.2 to update section references.
10. Amends Chapter 21A.52.060.A.4.c to update section references.
11. Amends Chapter 21A.52.060.B.4.c to update section references.
12. Amends 21A.55.020.B.4.a to eliminate the lot area limits for waiving density requirements to
converting nonconforming commercial properties in RMF districts through a Planned Development.
13. Amends Chapter 21A.55.060 to update section references to only include RMF-45 and reduce the
minimum required area for Planned Development.
Underlined text is new; text with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. All other text is existing with no
proposed change.
1. Amends the titles found in the table of contents of 21A.24 as follows: 1
21A.24.130: RMF-35 and RMF-45 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential Districts 2
21A.24.140: RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District 3
2. Amends Chapter 21A.22.010 as follows: 4
21A.22.010: Zoning Districts 5
In order to carry out the purposes of this title, Salt Lake City is divided into the following zoning 6
districts: 7
Section Reference District Name
21A.24.130 RMF-35 and RMF-45 Moderate Density Multi-
Family Residential Districts
21A.24.140 RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family
Residential District
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: ___12/3/25__________________
By: ____________________________
Courtney Lords, Senior City Attorney
2
3. Amends Chapter 21A.33.020, modifying only the RMF-35 and RMF-45 columns, as follows: 8
21A.33.020: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR 9
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: 10
Use
Permitted And Conditional
Uses By District
RMF-35 RMF-45
Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated
elsewhere in this title P P
Adaptive reuse for additional uses in eligible buildings C3 C3
Affordable housing incentives development P P
Bed and breakfast
Community garden P P
Community recreation center C C
Daycare center, adult P CP
Daycare center, child P P
Dwelling, assisted living facility (large) CP P
Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity) P P
Dwelling, assisted living facility (small) P P
Dwelling; dormitory, fraternity, sorority
Dwelling, group home (large) CP CP
Dwelling, group home (small) P P
Dwelling, manufactured home P P
Dwelling, residential support (large) P CP
Dwelling, residential support (small) CP CP
Dwelling, rooming (boarding) house P CP
Dwelling, single-family (attached) P P
3
Dwelling, single- family (detached) P P
Dwelling, twin home P P
Governmental facility C C
1 1
Municipal service use, including City utility use and police and fire station C C
Nursing care facility P P
Office, excluding medical and dental clinic and office
Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P P
Park P P
6 6
Place of worship on lots less than 4 acres in size C C
Plazas P P
School, seminary and religious institute C C
Urban farm P P
Utility, building or structure P5 P5
Qualifying provisions: 11
1. Subject to section 21A.36.030 of this title. 12
2. Provided that no more than 2 two-family buildings are located adjacent to one another and no 13
more than 3 such dwellings are located along the same block face (within subdivisions approved 14
after April 12, 1995). 15
3. Subject to conformance with the provisions of subsection 21A.52.060.A. 16
4. Subject to conformance with the provisions of section 21A.36.150 of this title. 17
5. See subsection 21A.02.050B of this title for utility regulations. 18
6. Prohibited when it includes the demolition of a dwelling unit. 19
4. Amends Chapter 21A.34.020.M.2.a as follows: 20
21A.34.020: H HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT: 21
M. Reconstruction 22
2. Modifications authorized: The following modifications are authorized for reconstruction 23
in accordance with this Subsection: 24
a. Density: The qualifying provisions for density found in the minimum lot area and lot 25
width tables of the zoning district do not apply to the proposed reconstruction, and in 26
the RMF-30, RMF-35, and RMF-45 zoning districts, the minimum lot size per 27
dwelling unit does not apply. 28
4
5. Amends Table 21A.40.090, modifying only the RMF-35 and RMF-45 rows, as follows: 29
TABLE 21A.40.090 30
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 31
Notes: 32
P =Permitted use C =Conditional use 33
1. Allowed as a permitted use on a residential building consisting of 4 or more attached dwelling 34
units and on nonresidential buildings. Zoning Administrator approval is required to assure 35
compliance to subsection EC2a of this section. 36
6. Amends the headings in Table 21A.44.040 -A. Other than identified below, there are no 37
other changes to the table. 38
TABLE 21A.44.040-A: MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM OFF STREET PARKING:
DU= dwelling unit sq. ft.= square feet
Land Use
Parking
General Context Transit Context
and MU-11 located
fixed- rail transit;
Aall
not listed in
and MU-11 located
between ½ mile and
¾ mile from fixed-
rail transit; SR-3,
FB-UN1, MU-2, MU-
-5, MU-6, MU-
8, and MU-11
mile and ¼ mile
from fixed-rail
transit; D-2
MU-5, MU-6, MU-
8, and MU-11
located within ¼
mile of fixed-rail
transit; D-1, D-3,
D-4, G-MU, UI
the closest point of the subject property line to the closest point of a fixed-rail
transit station platform
Wall
Mount3
Roof
Mount
Antennas And
Antenna Support
Structure Less Than 2'
3
Antennas And Antenna
Support Structure
Greater Than 2' Wide3
Lattice
Tower Stealth
Height
Limit But
Not To
Is Less)
Exceeding
The
Height
Limit Of
The Zone
Up To 30
Height
Limit But
Not To
Is Less)
The
Height
Limit Of
The Zone
Up To 30
RMF-35 P1
5
7. Amends headings in Table 21A.44.040-C. Other than identified below, there are no other 39
changes to the table. 40
TABLE 21A.44.040-C: MINIMUM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS*: (Calculation of Bicycle Parking Spaces to be Provided per Residential Unit or Based on Usable Floor Area)
USE General Context Transit Context
MU-11 located more
than ¾ mile to fixed-
transit; Aall zoning
districts not listed in
MU-11 located between
½ mile and ¾ mile from
fixed-rail transit; SR-3,
FB-UN1, MU-2, MU-3,
8, and MU-11
located between ½
mile and ¼ mile
from fixed- rail
MU-5, MU-6, MU-8,
and MU-11 located
within ¼ mile of fixed-
rail transit; D-1, D-3,
D-4, G-MU, UI
8. Amends Chapter 21A.52.050.G.2 as follows: 41
2. RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts: The qualifying provisions for density 42
found in the minimum lot area and lot width tables for the RMF-30, RMF-35, and RMF-45, and 43
RMF-75 zoning districts do not apply and in the RMF-30 zoning district, the minimum lot size 44
per dwelling unit does not apply, provided the affordability requirements for Type B in Table 45
21A.52.050.G are met. 46
2. RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45 and RMF-75 zoning districts: In the RMF-30, RMF-35, and RMF-45 47
zoning districts, the minimum lot size per dwelling unit does not apply, and in the RMF-75 48
zoning district, the qualifying provisions for density found in the minimum lot area and lot width 49
table do not apply, provided the affordability requirements for Type B in Table 21A.52.050.G are 50
met. 51
9. Amends Chapter 21A.52.050.H.2 as follows: 52
2. Within the RMF-30, RMF-35, RMF-45, and RMF-75 zoning districts the following provisions 53
shall apply: 54
a. Unit Mix: No more than 25% of the units in the development shall be less than 500 square 55
feet to promote a mix of unit sizes. 56
b. Parking: Unless there is a lesser parking requirement in Chapter 21A.44, only one-half (0.5) 57
of an off-street parking space per unit is required in multifamily developments with less than 58
10 units. 59
c. Yards: The minimum required yards shall apply to the perimeter of the development and not 60
to the individual principal buildings within the development. 61
d. Lot width: Minimum lot width requirements do not apply. 62
10. Amends Subsection 21A.52.060.A.4.c as follows: 63
c. Minimum Lot Area and Lot Width: Minimum lot area and lot width requirements of the 64
zoning district do not apply for the adaptive reuse in all zoning districts. In the RMF-30, 65
RMF-35, and RMF-45 zoning districts, the minimum lot size per dwelling unit does not 66
apply. 67
6
11. Amends Chapter 21A.52.060.B.4.c as follows: 68
c. Minimum Lot Area, Width, and Coverage: 69
(1) The minimum lot width for the land use found in the minimum lot area and lot width 70
tables of the zoning district does not apply. 71
(2) The minimum lot area for the land use found in the minimum lot area and lot width 72
tables of the zoning district only applies for the following zoning districts: FR-1, FR-2, 73
FR-3, R -1/12,000, R-1/7,000 and R-1/5,000. 74
(3) RMF-30, RMF-35, and RMF-45 zoning districts: The minimum lot size per dwelling 75
unit does not apply. 76
(4) Lot coverage may be calculated for the overall development area not the individual lot 77
or parcel within the development area. 78
12. Amends 21A.55.020.B.4.a as follows: 79
a. Developments approved as a Planned Development in In the RMF zoning districts and on 80
lots 0.20 acres or more in size, developments that change a nonconforming commercial use 81
to a residential use that is allowed in the zoning district are exempt from the density 82
limitations of the that zoning district when approved as a planned development. 83
13. Amends Chapter 21A.55.060 as follows: 84
Table 21A.55.060 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS 85
District Minimum Planned Development Size
Moderate Density Multi-
86
1
Project Title: RMF 35 and RMF 45 Consolidation: Chapter
21A.37 Design Standards
Petition No.: PLNPC2024-01388
Version: City Council Amendment V2
Date Prepared: December 3, 2025
Planning Commission Action: Recommended approval
This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summary purposes only):
• Amends 21A.37.060 so that design standard requirements in residential districts are separated by
building type.
• Amends 21A.37.060 to update design standards for the RMF-35 and RMF-45 districts.
Underlined text is new; text with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. Modifications made as part of
the Planning Commission recommendation are highlighted in yellow. All other text is existing with no
proposed change.
1. Amends Chapter 21A.37.060 as follows: 1
21A.37.060: DESIGN STANDARDS REQUIRED IN EACH ZONING DISTRICT: 2
This section identifies each design standard and to which zoning districts the standard applies. If a box is 3
checked (X) or noted with a dimension, that standard is required. If a box is blank, it is not required. If a 4
specific dimension or detail of a design standard differs among zoning districts or differs from the 5
definition, it will be indicated within the box. In cases when a dimension in this table conflicts with a 6
dimension in the definition, the dimensions listed in the table shall take precedence. 7
Table 21A.37.060 8
A. Residential Districts 9
1. Standards for Single-family, Urban House, Two-family, and Cottage Development Building 10
Forms: 11
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: __12/3/25___________________
By: ____________________________
Courtney Lords, Senior City Attorney
2
12
2. Standards for Row House Building Form 13
14
3. Standards for Multi-Family Building Form 15
3
16
4. Standards for all Other Building Forms 17
A. Residential Districts: 18
Standard
(Code Section)
4
Building materials: ground floor
(%) (21A.37.050 B3)
50
Building materials: upper floors
(%) (21A.37.050 B4)
50
Glass: ground floor (%)
(21A.37.050 C1)
20
Glass: upper floors (%)
(21A.37.050 C2)
15
Building entrances (feet)
(21A.37.050 D)
X
Blank wall: maximum length (feet)
(21A.37.050 E)
15
Street facing facade: maximum
length (feet) (21A.37.050F)
Upper floor step back (feet)
(21A.37.050)
Lighting: exterior (21A.37.050H)
Lighting: parking lot
(21A.37.050I)
Screening of mechanical
equipment (21A.37.050J)
X
Screening of service areas
(21A.37.050K)
X
Parking garages or structures
(21A.37.050M)
19
1
Project Title: RMF 35 and RMF 45 Consolidation: Chapter
21A.24.130 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential
Districts
Petition No.: PLNPC2024-01388
Version: City Council Amendment V2
Date Prepared: December 3, 2025
Planning Commission Action: Recommended approval
This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summary purposes only):
• Amends Chapter 21A.24.130 to remove RMF-35 language
• Amends Chapter 21A.24.130 to replace RMF-35 with new RMF-35 & RMF-45 Ordinance
• Amends 21A.24.140 to remove RMF-45 language
Underlined text is new; text with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. All other text is existing with no
proposed change.
1. Amends Chapter 21A.24.130 as follows: 1
21A.24.130: RMF-35 and RMF-45 MODERATE DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 2
DISTRICTS 3
A. Purpose Statement: The RMF-35 and RMF-45 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential Districts 4
are intended to provide an environment in the city suitable for a variety of residential building forms 5
that are moderate in scale, up to a height of 35 feet in the RMF-35 district and 45 feet in the RMF-45 6
district, with a density based on the land use policies identified in the general plan. The districts serve 7
as a transition between low-density neighborhoods and areas with greater land-use intensity. The 8
primary intent of both districts is to enable infill development, encourage incremental construction of 9
affordable and attainable housing, and support the character of established residential neighborhoods. 10
The form-based standards for the districts are intended to promote a variety of housing options. These 11
districts are meant to facilitate an engaging pedestrian experience, support nearby commercial uses, 12
and encourage sustainable modes of transportation. 13
B. Allowed Uses: Land uses shall be allowed as a permitted or conditional use based on the land use 14
tables for each listed district in Chapter 21A.33. Any permitted or conditional use shall also be 15
limited by any specific provision in this chapter or as determined by the building type definitions 16
found in 21A.62.060. 17
1. Accessory Uses and Structures: Accessory uses and structures shall be allowed subject to the 18
requirements of 21A.36.020, 21A.36.030, and 21A.40 of this title and any other provisions that 19
specifically apply to accessory uses and structures that may be found in this title. 20
C. General Provisions: 21
1. Building Height: 22
a. Maximum: Building height maximums are based on building forms listed in 21A.24.130.F. 23
b. Measurement: Building height in this chapter shall be measured from finished grade. 24
2. Yard and Setback: 25
a. General Yard Applicability: When a development includes multiple lots, the minimum 26
required yards may apply to the perimeter of the development rather than to individual lots. 27
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: __12/3/25__________________
By: ____________________________
Courtney Lords, Senior City Attorney
2
b. Front and Corner Side Yard Exceptions: 28
(1) Adjacent Building Exception: A required minimum front or corner side yard may be 29
reduced to equal an abutting lot's front or corner side yard if the yard area is located along 30
the same block face. 31
(2) Curb Distance Exception: No minimum setback is required for the front or corner side 32
yard if the respective lot line is more than 20 feet from the street curb face. 33
c. Side or Rear Yard Abutting an Alley: Half the width of an abutting alley may be counted 34
toward a required side or rear yard. 35
3. Lot Size Provisions: 36
a. Lot Width Maximum: The width of a new lot shall not exceed 110 feet. Where more than 37
one lot is created, the combined lot width of abutting lots within a new subdivision, including 38
area between lots, shall not exceed 110 feet. 39
b. Lot Area Requirement Exception: No minimum lot area is required for utility buildings and 40
structures or for allowed uses that do not involve the construction of a principal building, 41
such as parks and open space. 42
4. Open Space Area Requirements: Open space areas may include landscaped yards, patios, 43
dining areas, common balconies, rooftop gardens, and other similar outdoor living spaces. Private 44
balconies, required parking lot landscaping, or required perimeter parking lot landscaping shall 45
not be counted toward the minimum open space area requirement. When required by the building 46
form standards in this chapter, the following open space standards shall apply: 47
a. Common Open Space Areas: A common open space area is an outdoor space shared by all 48
dwelling units within a development that meets the minimum size requirement specified in an 49
applicable building form table. For developments that involve subdividing a site into multiple 50
lots, common open space areas may use the entire development area, provided each dwelling 51
unit has legally established access to the common open space area. At least 50% of the 52
required common open space shall be contiguous and include the following: 53
(1) A minimum of 33% live vegetation; 54
(2) A minimum width of 6 feet; and 55
(3) At least two of the following: 56
(A) A bench for every 250 square feet of common open space area; 57
(B) An outdoor amenity intended to provide outdoor recreation and leisure opportunities, 58
which may include playgrounds, seating areas, gardens, sports courts, or similar 59
amenities intended to promote outdoor activity; or 60
(C) A shade structure or tree with a minimum spread of 20 feet at mature height for every 61
250 square feet of common open space area. If a tree is provided, the tree canopy at 62
maturity may count toward the required minimum area of vegetation. 63
b. Personal Open Space Areas: A personal open space area is a private area that is accessible 64
only to its respective dwelling unit. Each personal open space area shall be separated from 65
other areas by a fence, hedge, or other physical barrier to distinguish it as private. When 66
required, the minimum personal open space area shall apply to each dwelling unit in a 67
development. Each personal open space area shall: 68
(1) Contain at least one shade area. Shade may include a tree, pergola, gazebo, or other 69
similar structure designed to provide shade to the area. Shade structures may encroach 70
into a required yard provided they are located at least one foot from all lot lines; 71
(2) Have no more than 50% coverage of impervious surfaces; 72
(3) Not be located within a required front yard; and 73
3
(4) Have a minimum width of 6 feet. 74
c. Proximity to Public Parks: The open space required by a building form standard does not 75
apply when the subject property is within 800 feet of a public park or open space, as 76
measured along the closest reasonable walking path. 77
5. Public Street Frontage: 78
a. Buildings Without Frontage: A lot may contain principal buildings without public street 79
frontage, provided that: 80
(1) At least one principal building on the lot has public street frontage; 81
(2) Each building has legally established access to a public street; and 82
(3) Each ground-floor dwelling unit of the Row House, Urban House, Two-Family, and 83
Cottage Development forms shall include an entry feature allowed by 21A.37.050, 84
regardless of street frontage. 85
b. Lots Without Frontage: For the purpose of this provision, individual dwellings may be on 86
their own lot, including within a condominium development. Lots without public street 87
frontage, used for individual dwelling units or buildings, are allowed subject to a preliminary 88
subdivision plat process and recording a final subdivision plat that: 89
(1) Documents that new lots have adequate access to a public street by way of easements or a 90
shared driveway; and 91
(2) Includes a disclosure of private infrastructure costs for any shared infrastructure 92
associated with the new lot(s) per Section 21A.55.110 of this title and all other 93
requirements therein. 94
6. Midblock Walkways: When identified in the general plan, midblock walkways are subject to the 95
following requirements: 96
a. Width: The midblock walkway shall meet the minimum width requirements established in 97
the applicable plan. If no minimum width is provided, it shall be 6 feet. 98
b. Encroachments: The following building encroachments are permitted in an outdoor 99
midblock walkway: 100
(1) Balconies: All balconies must be located at the third story or above; 101
(2) Building overhangs and associated cantilever: These coverings shall be located no lower 102
than 9 feet above the level of the sidewalk and may project up to 6 feet; 103
(3) Other architectural element(s) not listed above that offer refuge from weather and/or 104
provide publicly accessible usable space, projecting up to 1 foot into the midblock 105
walkway. 106
D. Unit Density Bonus: Bonus dwelling units may be granted when an existing principal building is 107
retained as part of a development that adds at least one additional dwelling unit pursuant to the 108
following: 109
1. Two bonus dwelling units of any building type may be granted for retaining an existing structure 110
that contains one or two dwelling units, or retaining two dwelling units within separate buildings 111
on a site. 112
2. Four bonus dwelling units of any type may be granted for retaining an existing building 113
containing three or more dwelling units or retaining three or more dwelling units within multiple 114
buildings on a site. 115
3. A bonus dwelling unit may be added within or attached to an existing principal building or as a 116
separate building, provided that all other applicable zoning requirements are met. Bonus units are 117
not subject to minimum lot area requirements. 118
4. The addition of a bonus dwelling unit to an existing principal building does not change the 119
building type of the existing building. 120
5. Bonus dwelling units are exempt from minimum off-street parking requirements. 121
4
6. Bonus dwelling units are exempt from open space area requirements. 122
7. The exterior building walls and roofline of the existing principal building must be retained to 123
obtain a bonus dwelling unit. Additional stories are permitted and existing architectural elements 124
may be modified provided they meet applicable zoning or historic preservation standards. 125
8. A density bonus may only be requested with a building permit application for development that 126
meets the minimum lot area requirements. 127
9. Any density bonus granted shall be documented through a restrictive covenant, the form of which 128
shall be approved by the city attorney. The restrictive covenant shall be recorded on the property 129
with the Salt Lake County Recorder prior to final inspection of the bonus units. The restrictive 130
covenant shall run with the land and shall provide for the following, without limitation: 131
a. Indicate that bonus dwelling units were established by retaining existing structures on a site. 132
b. Guarantee that the building(s) containing the unit(s) used to qualify for the bonus units shall 133
not be demolished unless the associated bonus units are also demolished; and 134
c. Establish that the terms of the restrictive covenant are enforceable by the city or, pursuant to 135
Utah Code Section 10-9a-802 (or its successor), any adversely affected party, and that in any 136
such enforcement action the court shall award the prevailing party its attorneys' fees. 137
E. Other Applicable Regulations: The following additional regulations apply to properties within this 138
district: 139
1. 21A.33 Land Use Tables 140
2. 21A.24.010 General Provisions for Residential Districts 141
3. 21A.36 General Provisions 142
4. 21A.37 Design Standards 143
5. 21A.38 Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures 144
6. 21A.40 Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures 145
7. 21A.42 Temporary Uses 146
8. 21A.44 Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading 147
9. 21A.46 Signs 148
10. 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers 149
F. Building Types, Forms and Standards: Allowed building forms shall be determined based on the 150
definitions in 21A.62.060. Standards for each allowed building form are listed in the Building Form 151
Standards tables below. 152
1. Urban House and Two-Family Building Form Standards: 153
TABLE 21A.24.130.F.1 154
Building Regulation Regulation for Building Forms: Urban House and Two-Family Dwelling
Maximum: 35 feet
Minimum:
Minimum:
Minimum:
Minimum:
Minimum:
Maximum: 2
Building Coverage Maximum: 60%. When a development includes multiple lots, the building
coverage limit shall apply to the development site as a whole.
5
2. Cottage Development Building Form Standards: 155
TABLE 21A.24.130.F.2 156
3. Row House Building Form Standards: 157
TABLE 21A.24.130.F.3 158
Landscape Buffer
Attached Garage
width of the front facade of the building.
of multiple garage doors, the sum of the widths of each garage door plus the
width of any intervening wall elements between garage doors.
No attached garage shall be constructed forward of the "front line of the
building" (as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this title).
Building Regulation Regulation for Building Form: Cottage Development
Maximum: 23 feet
Minimum:
Minimum:
Minimum:
Minimum:
Minimum:
Maximum: 1
Building Size 850 square feet of gross floor area per Cottage
Open Space Area Minimum
Landscape Buffers
Building Regulation Regulation for Building Form: Row House
Maximum: 35 feet
Minimum:
Minimum:
Interior Side Yard
Minimum:
When the interior side yard abuts an R-1, R-
the side lot line, the minimum is 10 feet unless a street or alley separates the
Minimum:
6
4. Multi-Family Residential Building Form Standards: 159
TABLE 21A.24.130.F.4 160
5. Non-residential Building Form Standards: 161
TABLE 21A.24.130.F.4 162
lot line, the minimum is 15 feet unless a street or alley separates the
Minimum:
Maximum: 6
Open Space Area Minimum:
Landscape Buffers
Attached Garages
Building Regulation Regulation for Building Form: Multi-Family Residential
Maximum:
Maximum:
Minimum:
Minimum:
Interior Side Yard
Minimum:
When the interior side yard abuts an R-1, R-
the side lot line, the minimum is 10 feet unless a street or alley separates the
Rear Yard
Minimum:
When the rear yard abuts an R-1, R-
lot line, the minimum is 15 feet unless a street or alley separates the
Minimum:
Building Form Maximum: 20
Building Form Maximum: 50
Open Space Area
Minimum:
developments with 3 dwelling units, a minimum of 200 square feet of
Landscape Buffers
Building Regulation Regulation for Building Form: Non-Residential
Maximum:
Maximum:
Minimum:
7
163
A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District 164
is to provide an environment suitable for a variety of moderate density housing types, including single-165
family, two-family, and multi-family dwellings with a maximum height of thirty five feet (35'). This 166
district is appropriate in areas where the applicable Master Plan policies recommend a density of less than 167
thirty (30) dwelling units per acre. This district includes other uses that are typically found in a multi-168
family residential neighborhood of this density for the purpose of serving the neighborhood. Uses are 169
intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the 170
district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and 171
compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. 172
B. Uses: Uses in the RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District, as specified in 173
section 21A.33.020, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts", of this title, 174
are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this chapter and this 175
section. 176
C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district 177
are as follows: 178
Land Use Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width
1
Municipal service uses, including City utility uses No minimum No minimum
Minimum:
Interior Side Yard
Minimum:
When the interior side yard abuts an R-1, R-
the side lot line, the minimum is 10 feet unless a street or alley separates the
Rear Yard
Minimum:
When the rear yard abuts an R-1, R-
lot line, the minimum is 15 feet unless a street or alley separates the
Minimum:
Open Space Area Minimum: 15% of the lot area shall be common or private open space
Landscape Buffers
8
Two-family dwellings 8,000 square feet 50 feet
Utility substations and buildings 5,000 square feet 50 feet
section 21A.33.020 of this title
Qualifying provisions: 179
1. 9,000 square feet for 3 units, plus 2,000 square feet for each additional dwelling unit up to and 180
including 11 units. 26,000 square feet for 12 units, plus 1,000 square feet for each additional dwelling unit 181
up to 1 acre. For developments greater than 1 acre, 1,500 square feet for each dwelling unit is required. 182
D. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height permitted in this district is thirty five 183
feet (35'). 184
E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 185
1. Front Yard: Twenty feet (20'). 186
2. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10'). 187
3. Interior Side Yard: 188
a. Single-family detached and two-family dwellings: 189
(1) Interior lots: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. 190
(2) Corner lots: Four feet (4'). 191
b. Single-family attached: No yard is required, however, if one is provided it shall not be less than 192
four feet (4'). 193
c. Twin home dwelling: No yard is required along one side lot line while a ten foot (10') yard is 194
required on the other. 195
d. Multi-family dwellings: 196
(1) Interior lots: Side yard shall be at least ten feet (10'). 197
e. All other permitted and conditional uses: Ten feet (10') on each side. 198
4. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but not less than twenty feet (20') and need 199
not exceed twenty five feet (25'). 200
5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located 201
in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Required Yards", 202
of this title. 203
6. Existing Yards: For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required yard shall be no 204
greater than the established setback line of the existing building. 205
F. Required Landscape Yards: The front yard, corner side and, for interior multi-family lots, one of the 206
interior side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards. 207
G. Maximum Building Coverage: 208
1. Single-Family Detached: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not 209
exceed forty five percent (45%) of the lot area. 210
2. Single-Family Attached Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings 211
shall not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the lot area. 212
3. Two-Family And Twin Home Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory 213
buildings shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot area. 214
4. Multi-Family Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not 215
exceed sixty percent (60%) of the lot area. 216
9
5. Existing Dwellings: For dwellings existing on April 12, 1995, the coverage of such existing 217
buildings shall be considered legally conforming. 218
6. Nonresidential Land Uses: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not 219
exceed sixty percent (60%) of the lot area. 220
H. Landscape Buffers: Where a lot abuts a lot in a single-family or two-family residential district, a 221
landscape buffer shall be provided in accordance with chapter 21A.48 of this title. (Ord. 56-24, 2024: 222
Ord. 46-17, 2017: Ord. 66-13, 2013: Ord. 12-11, 2011: Ord. 62-09 §§ 6, 9, 2009: Ord. 61-09 § 7, 2009: 223
Ord. 35-99 §§ 18, 19, 1999: Ord. 26-95 § 2(12-12), 1995) 224
225
2. Amends Chapter 21A.24.140 as follows: 226
21A.24.140: Reserved RMF-45 MODERATE/HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 227
DISTRICT 228
229
A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential 230
District is to provide an environment suitable for multi-family dwellings of a moderate/high density with 231
a maximum building height of forty five feet (45'). This district is appropriate in areas where the 232
applicable Master Plan policies recommend a density of less than forty three (43) dwelling units per acre. 233
This district includes other uses that are typically found in a multi-family residential neighborhood of this 234
density for the purpose of serving the neighborhood. Such uses are designed to be compatible with the 235
existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for 236
safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns 237
and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. 238
239
B. Uses: Uses in the RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District, as specified 240
in section 21A.33.020, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts", of this title, 241
are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this chapter and this 242
section. 243
244
C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district 245
are as follows: 246
247
Land Use Minimum Lot Area
Land Use Minimum Lot Area
Multi-family dwellings (3 to 14 units) 9,000 square feet1 80 feet
Multi-family dwellings (15 or more) 21,000 square feet1 80 feet
No minimum No minimum
No minimum No minimum
Places of worship less than 4 acres in size 12,000 square feet 140 feet
Public pedestrian pathways, trails and greenways No minimum No minimum
10
No minimum No minimum
Single-family attached dwellings 3,000 square feet
per unit
Interior: 22 feet
Corner: 32 feet
Single-family detached dwellings 5,000 square feet 50 feet
Utility substations and buildings 5,000 square feet 50 feet
10,000 square feet 80 feet
Qualifying provisions: 248
1. 9,000 square feet for 3 units, plus 1,000 square feet for each additional dwelling unit up to and 249
including 14 units. 21,000 square feet for 15 units, plus 800 square feet for each additional dwelling unit 250
up to 1 acre. For developments greater than 1 acre, 1,000 square feet for each dwelling unit is required. 251
252
D. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height permitted in this district is forty five feet 253
(45'). 254
E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 255
1. Front Yard: Twenty percent (20%) of lot depth, but need not exceed twenty five feet (25'). For 256
buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the existing 257
yard. 258
2. Corner Side Yard: 259
a. Single-family attached dwellings: Ten feet (10'). 260
b. Multi-family dwellings: Twenty feet (20'). 261
c. All other permitted and conditional uses: Twenty feet (20'). 262
3. Interior Side Yard: 263
a. Single-family attached dwelling: No yard is required, however if one is provided it shall not be 264
less than four feet (4'). 265
b. Multi-family dwellings: The minimum yard shall be eight feet (8'); provided, that no principal 266
building is erected within ten feet (10') of a building on an abutting lot. 267
c. All other permitted and conditional uses: Ten feet (10') on each side. 268
4. Rear Yard: The rear yard shall be twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but need not exceed 269
thirty feet (30'). 270
5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located 271
in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Required Yards", 272
of this title. 273
F. Required Landscape Yards: The front yard, corner side and, for interior lots, one of the interior side 274
yards shall be maintained as a landscape yard except that single-family attached dwellings, no interior 275
side yard shall be required. 276
G. Maximum Building Coverage: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall 277
not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the lot area. 278
H. Landscape Buffers: Where a lot abuts a lot in a single-family or two-family residential district, a 279
landscape buffer shall be provided in accordance with chapter 21A.48, "Landscaping And Buffers", of 280
this title. 281
282
283
284
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2025
(Amending the zoning map pertaining to multiple parcels of property from RMF-35 Moderate
Density Multi-Family Residential District to RMF-45 Moderate Density Multi-Family
Residential District in connection with revised regulations for such districts)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to multiple parcels Citywide as shown
on Exhibit A, attached hereto, to rezone select properties from the RMF-35 (Moderate Density
Multi-Family) district to the RMF-45 (Moderate Density Multi-Family) district, pursuant to
Petition No. PLNPCM2024-01388.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a
public hearing on May 14, 2025, on a petition initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall to amend
various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code related to the RMF-35 (Moderate
Density Multi-Family) and RMF-45 (Moderate Density Multi-Family) zoning districts and
establish new regulations pertaining to those districts; and
WHEREAS, in order to conform with the future land use maps of the neighborhood plans
implicated by these zoning districts, the parcels identified in this ordinance needed to be rezoned;
WHEREAS, at its May 14, 2025, meeting the Planning Commission voted in favor of
forwarding a position recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said
petition; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to reflect that the property depicted in Exhibit A and listed by Tax ID number
2
in Exhibit B shall be rezoned from the RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family) district to the
RMF-45 (Moderate Density Multi-Family) district. In the event that a conflict arises between
Exhibit A and Exhibit B, Exhibit A shall control. It is not the intent of this Section 1 to modify
existing district boundaries (i.e. the physical location between or on parcels where a district
boundary lies), only to change the assigned zoning district of the properties subject to this
Section 1.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
2025.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2025.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance Rezoning Properties for RMF35/45 Amendments_v1
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
July 22, 2025
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Lehua Weaver, Austin Kimmel, Kira
Luke, Allison Rowland, Sylvia Richards, Michael Sanders, and
Kate Werrett
DATE: January 13, 2026
RE: FY2026 Budget Amendment 4
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: January 13, 2026
Set Date: January 13, 2026
Public Hearing: February 3, 2026
Potential Action: February 3, 2026
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Budget Amendment 4 includes 27 proposed amendments, including $16,614,942 in revenues and
$16,847,383 in expenditures, including $8,650,923 from the General Fund. The amendment proposes changes
in seven funds and adds 8.0 FTE’s for the Justice Court.
With the adoption of Budget Amendment 4, the available fund balance will be 16.91% of the FY2026 adopted
budget. If the items are adopted as proposed, then the Fund Balance would be 3.91%, or $20,026,782, above the
13% minimum Council policy target. Updated Fund Balance numbers and percentages can be found in the table
on page 2 of this report.
STRAW POLL REQUESTS
The Administration has requested straw polls for the following items:
1. A-10: Backhoe for Public Services Streets Division & Tractor for Public Lands Parks Division
2. A-17: Council support to proceed with the appointment process for a sixth Justice Court Judge
3. D-5: Streets GO Bonds Interest Reallocation for FY 2025-26
UPDATED FUND BALANCE CHART
The Administration provided the following fund balance and revenue chart reflecting the proposed changes
included in Budget Amendment 4. If the proposed budget amendment items are approved, the fund balance is
projected to be 16.91%, which is 3.91% - or $20,026,782- above the target fund balance of 13% of projected
General Fund revenue.
Page | 2
IMPACT FEE UNALLOCATED “AVAILABLE TO SPEND” BALANCES AND REFUND TRACKING
The table below is current as of June 30, 2025. Impact fees must be encumbered or spent within six years of the
City receiving them. Expired impact fees must be returned to the entity that paid them with interest over the
intervening six years.
Type
Unallocated Cash
“Available to
Spend”
Next Refund Trigger Date
$ Expiring in
FY2028
Fire $685,449 More than two years away -
Parks $12,723,823 More than two years away -
Police $1,697,464 More than two years away -
Transportation $1,615,373 More than two years away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
Page | 2
Page | 3
REVENUE UPDATE
The Administration provided the table below with updated revenue details.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Section A: New Items
The Administration is requesting $37,000 to replace an Urban Services compliance vehicle that was totaled in
April 2025. In June 2025, the totaled vehicle was auctioned for $142.50, and those funds were placed in the
Fleet Replacement Fund. To offset the loss of the vehicle, the division has been using Fleet loaner vehicles and a
bicycle; however, a designated vehicle is essential to Urban Services’ operations. The division has proposed
transferring $37,000 from its operational budget to Fleet for the replacement electric vehicle.
The Administration is requesting $30,000 to purchase a drop-down trailer to support Clean City Team work.
The trailer will primarily be used to carry sidewalk scrubbing equipment. The Clean City Team has been
borrowing a Facilities trailer, however, the use for both functions has grown such that it is impractical for the
teams to split trailer usage. The formation of Clean City has generated efficiencies that have reduced the need for
contract labor; supporting them with the requested trailer will continue to increase call response capacity.
Page | 4
A-3: Wildland Firefighting Expansion Funding. (General Fund: One-time - $13,000 & General
Fund: Ongoing - $75,000)
The Fire Department is requesting $88,000 in General Fund funding to strengthen wildland fire preparedness
and response capabilities. This funding request will include $75,000 ongoing in the FY2027 budget. This
funding will support:
Increased staffing during red flag days
Expanded wildland fire training opportunities
Acquisition of wildland personal protective equipment (PPE) and tools
Replacement of aging wildland operation radios
Below is a line-item budget summary of the request.
$25,000 $40,000
$28,000 $25,000
$35,000 $10,000
Wildfire risk is increasing both statewide and within the City, particularly in the wildland-urban interface
(WUI). In 2025, approximately 160,000 acres burned statewide, nearly double the acreage burned in 2024. This
growing risk underscores the importance of preparedness and rapid response. Goal 1 of the Fire Department’s
Strategic Plan “provide unparalleled public safety service” calls for expanding WUI capabilities.
The requested funding will support increased staffing during periods of elevated fire risk. On red flag days,
additional personnel will patrol the WUI and wildland areas to conduct prevention, detection, and initial
suppression activities, to improve the City’s ability to respond quickly before fires escalate.
The department is requesting funding for wildland PPE and tools, including hoses, nozzles, and hand tools.
Currently, this equipment is primarily housed at stations closest to the WUI. This proposal would make wildland
PPE and tools available at all fire stations, for potential “all-hands-on-deck” wildfire events.
The department is also proposing to replace its existing 10-year-old Bendix King radios, which are no longer
manufactured. These radios are critical for wildland firefighting operations and are the standard radios used by
state and regional partners. Replacing them will ensure reliable communication and interoperability during
multi-agency wildfire incidents.
The Council may wish to ask the Administration if this request could be delayed to the FY2027 annual budget.
One-time transfer from GF to Fleet, $163,900. To fund new capital equipment purchases, the Department of
Public Lands (DPL) proposes to use $163,900 in FY2026 personnel funding from attrition and vacancy savings
in the past six months. The equipment includes:
Page | 5
One Kubota RTV Utility Vehicle ($50,300) to water newly planted trees in maintenance district 2,
freeing up a one-ton dump truck to be used by the Restrooms and Garbage crew, which provides daily
restroom cleaning, pulls trash cans to the curb and back into the parks, and picks up trash in parks.
One Toro Dingo trencher ($47,500) to replace a unit that was stolen sometime in Fall 2024. The theft
was reported to the Police Department as soon as it was discovered missing, but it has not been
recovered. The City’s insurance does not cover the theft or damage of non-real estate assets worth less
than $100,000; therefore, the Department must pay for the replacement.
Aerator ($15,600) for use exclusively at the Regional Athletic Complex rather than borrowing the Parks
Division’s existing unit.
Caterpillar model 302 C3 small excavator ($50,500) to allow the new, highly experienced machine
operator on the Trails Team to perform in-house trail construction and maintenance. This would save
$4,000 per month on rentals and provide improved consistency and results. In addition, the excavator
would be used for restoration projects, fire mitigation efforts, and vegetation management on other
Department properties.
Policy Question:
The Council may wish to ask whether this excavator will be used on Foothills Trails construction, and
if so, what the planned timeline is for this work.
A-5: Park Land Acquisition. (Parks Impact Fees: One-time - $405,000)
The Department of Public Lands (DPL) would use this amount to purchase 1.09 acres of open space land. Note:
the December 23, 2025, transmittal erroneously lists CIP as the funding source, it is instead Parks Impact Fees.
A-6: Pedestrian Bridge Over the Surplus Canal at Glendale Golf Course. (General Fund: One-
time - $250,000)
This amount would cover construction costs associated with SLC Engineering installing improvements under an
existing pedestrian bridge, which spans the Surplus Levee, at the Glendale Golf Course. This structure was
flagged by the United States Army Corps of Engineers several years ago as an unpermitted encroachment and
the Corps recently issued approvals for City permitting and erosion control at this site. The improvements would
treat existing erosion and prevent further erosion around the pedestrian bridge piles that support the structure,
as well as protect the structural integrity of the Surplus Canal banks.
Project bidding and construction is considered urgent, so the Administration prefers funding this in a budget
amendment rather than waiting for the next Capital Asset Planning process. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) updates their Flood Insurance Rate Maps based on levee conditions reported by
the Corps, so levee deficiencies—like the ones that will be rectified by the proposed project—can lead to
increased flood insurance rates for homes and businesses protected by the levee.
A-9: Public Services Facilities Division: Old Library Immediate Facility Needs (General Fund:
One-time - $195,000)
The Administration is requesting $195,000 for several maintenance and security items associated with the Old
Library, the former location of the Leonardo. $130,000 will be used to replace the defunct access control system
and install security cameras. $65,000 will be used for:
Grounds maintenance
Security
Repairs to doors, plumbing, electrical and mechanical systems
Janitorial Services
Moving services
Funding will come from the General Fund. Grounds maintenance, security, and janitorial services will be
incorporated into the FY2027 budget as ongoing expenses.
Page | 6
A-10: Backhoe for Public Services Streets Division & Tractor for Public Lands Parks Division.
(General Fund: One-time - $292,819)
The Administration is requesting $292,819 to replace a Streets Division backhoe and a Parks Division tractor.
Both pieces of equipment have suffered catastrophic failures, and the estimated repair costs significantly exceed
their remaining value. These assets were originally scheduled for replacement in FY2027.
Upon replacement, both assets will be auctioned, with estimated sale proceeds ranging from $9,700 to $17,900
per unit. The proceeds will be deposited into the Fleet Replacement Fund and used toward future vehicle
replacements in accordance with the annual budget process. The FY2026 Fleet Replacement Fund has been fully
allocated to other purchases and is not available to offset the cost of these replacements. Additionally, neither
division has sufficient funding within their current budgets to absorb the replacement costs; therefore, a transfer
from the General Fund is requested.
The Administration is requesting a straw poll which, if affirmative, would authorize staff to proceed with
ordering the replacement equipment in order to receive it in time to support late spring and summer projects.
The Council may wish to consider straw polling this item.
Sample language: "I propose a straw poll to allocate funds from the General Fund in the amount of
$292,819, for the purchase of replacement equipment for the Streets and Parks Divisions."
To address personnel space constraints, the Administration is proposing capital improvements at the Old
Library, and Plaza 349 to support the Justice Courts and other city staff. These improvements are intended to
meet the space needs of the Justice Court and certain General Fund departments for several years.
The requested funding will support the following projects:
Old Library Improvements:
Infrastructure upgrades, including elevators, HVAC, and related systems
Conversion of existing galleries and classrooms into mixed-use space, including offices and meeting
rooms
Plaza 349 Improvements:
Upgrades to aging building systems
Relocation of a portion of Justice Court staff
Capital construction costs will be funded using accrued interest from tax-exempt bonds. Because furniture,
fixtures, and equipment (FF&E) are not an eligible use of this bond interest, $889,800 from the General Fund
Balance is requested to cover FF&E expenses.
The Administration is requesting $58,000 to replace a Streets Division trailer that has experienced a permanent
failure. This trailer is used by the asphalt crew to transport equipment for overlay work and larger pothole repair
projects. Although the trailer was originally scheduled for replacement in FY2027, heavy utilization and higher-
than-anticipated wear and tear have necessitated an earlier replacement.
The Streets Division proposes transferring $58,000 from the Streets budget to the Fleet budget to fund the
trailer replacement.
Page | 7
A-13: Funding for Gap in Homeless Resource Center Grant Funding for Salaries. (General Fund:
Ongoing - $292,833)
The Police Department is requesting $292,833 ongoing from the General Fund to fund a Homeless Resource
Center (HRC) mitigation officer. This position was previously funded through the State Homeless Mitigation
Grant; however, the grant award for FY2026 was reduced.
This request would allow the Police Department to maintain existing HRC mitigation staffing levels of 19 FTEs,
consisting of three squads and a supervising Lieutenant.
If State funding were to decline further and City funding were not available to backfill the reduction, the
Department indicated it would need to consider reducing the size of the HRC teams. An alternative option
identified would be to reduce internal overtime funding currently used for camp mitigation and redirect those
funds to cover squad costs; however, this approach would limit the Department’s ability to deploy overtime
resources for emerging mitigation needs.
The Department noted that either option would have a significant operational impact and could undermine
recent progress achieved through the HRC squads. The Department is actively communicating with state
officials regarding the importance of maintaining/increasing resources for cities providing public safety and
homeless services and is continuing to explore internal staffing efficiencies where possible.
The Police Department is requesting $3,810,941 in ongoing funding to cover overtime expenses.
Overtime is primarily used to:
Maintain minimum shift coverage, particularly during high-demand summer months
Support mitigation and proactive enforcement efforts
Staff special events and large-scale community activities
For FY2026, the Police Department’s adopted overtime budget totals $3,993,611. As of year-to-date, the
Department has expended approximately $3,301,926, or 83% of the annual overtime budget, and is trending
toward approximately $7.8 million in total overtime expenditures by year-end.
Rather than fully funding projected overtime needs upfront, the FY2026 budget assumed overtime would be
funded proportionally throughout the year while the availability of vacancy savings was evaluated. The overtime
FY2026 estimate was based on year-to-date expenditure data at the time of budget submission, forecasted
across the remainder of the fiscal year.
Unlike prior years, the Department does not anticipate vacancy savings in FY2026. The reduction in vacancy
savings is attributable to a higher sworn officer fill rate and lower attrition.
In FY2025, the Department incurred $8,244,009 in overtime costs, representing approximately 115,593
overtime hours. For FY2026, overtime is estimated at approximately 109,600 hours, a reduction in total hours
compared to FY2025. While fewer hours are predicted, overall overtime costs are projected to increase due to
higher overtime pay rates in FY2026.
The Department reported it is reviewing mitigation staffing logistics and evaluating potential reductions in shifts
and shift durations as part of its effort to manage overtime usage.
Page | 8
The Department has undergone recent changes to its organizational structure, staffing levels, and deployment
models and is actively working to rightsize operations and implement longer-term strategies to reduce reliance
on overtime. The department’s stated goal regarding overtime is to reduce the number of overtime shifts while
maintaining the ability to respond to emergencies and other operational demands.
A-15: Police Retirements Cost. (General Fund: One-time - $977,286)
Category Amount
Total One-Time Request $977,286
Historical context and budget timing
Current budget impacts
Anticipated retirements and funding strategy
Longer-term structural considerations
Page | 9
A-16: Police Mobile Command Center. (General Fund – one-time - $1,000,000)
The Police Department is requesting $1,000,000 in one-time funding in FY2026 to acquire a Mobile Command
Center (MCC) to support on-scene command, coordination, and communications during major incidents and
large-scale events. The Police Department currently does not have a functional mobile command platform. The
department currently relies on neighboring jurisdictions or state agencies to provide a mobile command center.
Due to an estimated one-year lead time for procurement and build-out, funding in FY2026 is necessary to
ensure the MCC is operational and available for events scheduled in early 2027.
Salt Lake City continues to face increasingly complex public safety threats, including:
Natural disasters (earthquakes, wildfires, floods, severe weather)
Mass casualty events
Large public gatherings and/or civil disturbances
Planned events with worldwide participation
Infrastructure failures and emerging cybersecurity-related incidents
According to the Administrative Transmittal, the MCC could provide:
Enhanced on-scene coordination and faster decision-making
Improved situational awareness during critical incidents
A secure, centralized location for command-and-control operations
Improved interagency coordination during multi-jurisdictional responses
Increased public confidence in emergency preparedness during major events
Since 2017, the Police Department has relied on mobile command posts provided by the Department of Public
Safety and Fire Department during numerous incidents. The Department indicated there have also been
additional incidents where a mobile command post would have been operationally beneficial but was not
available due to reliance on external resources.
If funded, the Department anticipates deploying the MCC approximately 50 or more times annually for complex
incidents and major events, including missing persons investigations, homicides, critical incidents, citywide
events, free-speech events, large-scale community gatherings, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Temple open house events, and preparedness for future Olympic-related activities.
The Department participates in an interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County law enforcement agencies for
resource sharing. While cost recovery is not typically assessed for shared use under this agreement,
reimbursement could be negotiated for exceptional circumstances. The Department does not anticipate frequent
external use of the MCC, as most partner agencies maintain their own command platforms.
Operation of the MCC would not require additional staffing. The Department anticipates nominal costs
associated with travel for vehicle acquisition and initial operator training, which it expects to absorb within its
existing budget.
The Department anticipates a 10 to 15-year service life for the MCC. Long-term maintenance and replacement
planning would be coordinated with Fleet Services as part of the City’s standard vehicle lifecycle management
process.
The Department is in the process of applying for grants which if awarded may be able to reimburse some of the
cost to the General Fund.
Page | 10
A-17: Justice Court, City Prosecutor's Office and Legal Defenders Association (LDA) Staffing
Increases. (General Fund: Ongoing - $201,749 for FY2026 & IMS Fund: One-time - $9,000)
The Administration is proposing staffing increases for the Justice Court, City Prosecutor’s Office, and Legal
Defenders Association (LDA) to address growth in case filings (particularly criminal cases and hearings) which
now exceed pre-pandemic levels.
This proposal adds 11 FTEs across the three offices, along with operating and technology costs. Because these
entities are operationally interdependent, the Administration recommends addressing staffing needs
simultaneously to maintain service levels and avoid shifting bottlenecks within the justice system.
FY2026 Budget Amendment
$201,749 ongoing General Fund (personnel and operations)
$9,000 one-time IMS Fund (computers)
FY2027 Ongoing Impact
$1,554,826 General Fund for fully loaded annual costs
Includes staffing across all three offices and a sixth Justice Court judge
While the FY2026 request is limited, Council should be aware that approval establishes a significant ongoing
commitment beginning in FY2027.
Justice Court
Justice Court Judge (Appointment process approval only; funding deferred until FY2027)
Clerk of Court
Judicial Assistant (2)
City Prosecutor’s Office
Associate Prosecutor (3)
Paralegal (1)
Legal Defenders Association
Attorney (2)
Case Manager (1)
Funding for a sixth Justice Court judge is not included in this FY2026 budget amendment due to an estimated
six-month appointment process, which would extend beyond the current fiscal year. However, the
Administration is requesting Council approval to proceed with the appointment process. Funding for a sixth
judge would be included in the FY2027 annual budget and has an annual estimated cost of $266,447.
The Council may wish to consider straw polling this item.
Sample language: "I propose a straw poll to indicate Council support for the Administration to proceed
with the appointment process for a sixth Justice Court Judge.”
The proposal includes $103,714 ongoing in General Fund funding and $9,000 one time in IMS Fund funding to
increase Justice Court staffing by 3 FTE’s and for increased operating costs to support anticipated workload
growth and preparation for a sixth judge. Additions include:
Clerk of Court (new supervisory position)
o $50,891 ongoing (4 months)
o $3,000 one-time (computer)
o Fully loaded annual cost: $152,672
o For more information on this position, see Attachment 2 of this staff report
Two Judicial Assistants (Level 2)
Page | 11
o $46,294 ongoing (3 months)
o $6,000 one-time (computers)
o Fully loaded annual cost: $185,177 total
o These positions would directly support the sixth judge once appointed.
Operating Costs
o $6,529 ongoing (3 months)
o Primarily for interpreter services and minor operational expenses
If all Justice Court positions (including the sixth judge) are approved, the FY2027 annual budget need would be
$630,411, and total staffing would increase to 48 FTEs (approximately a 9% increase).
City Prosecutor’s Office Staffing
The City Prosecutor’s Office is requesting $43,920 of General Fund ongoing funding to add four FTEs to reduce
attorney caseloads and improve case processing. Additions include:
Three Associate Prosecutors
o $33,699 ongoing (1 month)
o Fully loaded annual cost: $404,383 total
One Paralegal
o $10,221 ongoing (1 month)
o Fully loaded annual cost: $122,657
If approved, the FY2027 annual budget impact would be $527,041, increasing office staffing to 36 FTEs (a 13%
increase).
Legal Defenders Association
The Administration is proposing $33,115 of General Fund Funding to fund to increase the City’s contract with
the LDA, which provides legal defense services at the Justice Court but whose employees are not City staff. The
contract increases will include:
Two Attorneys
o $25,467 ongoing (1 month)
o Fully loaded annual cost: $305,607 total
One Case Manager
o $7,647 ongoing (1 month)
o Fully loaded annual cost: $91,767
o Would support the Familiar Faces Court, diversion programs, and Project Rio.
If approved, the FY2027 annual contract amount would increase to $2,191,184 (a 22% increase), requiring
$397,374 annually for the added positions.
A-18: Parking Wayfinding Signage. (General Fund: One-time, $584,495)
The Administration proposes to repair or replace a total of 54 way-finding signs that were once located
downtown. Of these, only 17 remain in service. Because the City does not have the equipment needed to produce
these large signs, the Administration proposes the Council consider two potential options for repair or
refurbishment:
1. Using a vinyl overlay to repair the 17 existing signs, at $3,100 each, totaling $52,700; or
2. Refurbish the 17 signs, at $4,900 each, totaling $83,300. This method is considered more attractive.
The Administration also notes that some of the foundations of the 17 existing signs also may need
refurbishment, at $1,700 each, which would cost a maximum of $28,900.
The remainder of the total $584,495 requested for this item would then be used to pay for new signs to replace
the 37 signs that no longer exist, at $12,400 each.
Page | 12
Policy Questions:
If the Council agrees to fund this item, which of the two options listed above is preferred?
The Council may wish to ask whether all of the original 54 signs are needed, given the ubiquitousness
of electronic way-finding methods used today.
A-20: Funding for Fisher Mansion. (CIP: One-time - $500,000)
The Administration is requesting $500,000 in unallocated bond interest for the Fisher Mansion rehabilitation
project. Funds may be used to address repair needs for the skylight, plaster cracks, soffits and fascia, restoring
sandstone porch elements, flooring, doors and windows. Additional funding requests will be required to
complete stabilization efforts and other necessary repairs.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
None
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
None
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Legislative Affairs Operations Funding. (General Fund: Ongoing - $80,000)
This item was inadvertently omitted from the annual budget due to a processing error during the FY2026 budget
development. This request restores $80,000 in funding for Legislative Affairs operating costs that were
previously provided but not incorporated into the base budget.
The funding would support operational expenses, including:
Access and parking at the State Capitol
Travel associated with legislative coordination and advocacy
Professional development and training
Support for legislative and intergovernmental events
D-2: Engineering Planning and Design Housekeeping and Expansion. (General Fund: Ongoing -
$350,000)
The Finance Department intended to make an annual transfer of $350,000 from CIP to Non-departmental for
Engineering Planning and Design. This housekeeping item would correct a reference mistakenly included in the
FY2026 budget transferring this amount to CIP funds. The correct reference would be to transfer this amount to
“an operational expense in the Non-Departmental cost center,” which would allow any unspent funds to drop to
fund balance at fiscal year-end.
D-3: Refuse Fund Carry Revenue Budget for Lease Agreement. (Refuse: One-Time - $8,918,482)
In Budget Amendment No. 2, Sustainability requested carry-forward budget that included $8,918,482 for fleet
vehicles for the Waste & Recycling Division to pay outstanding financial obligations from FY2025. However, the
revenue to offset these expenses was not included in that amendment. This budget amendment realizes the
financing revenue necessary to enter into lease agreements for those vehicles. Essentially, this item balances the
books by adding the missing revenue piece.
D-4: Community Events - Rescope. (General Fund: One-time - $400,000)
The Administration is requesting a rescope of the $400,000 FY2026 Open Streets funding. Council Members
will recall this funding is in the City’s Non-Departmental budget and was shifted to ongoing funding in FY2026.
The Administration states the funding would be used for the following community events:
$100,000 for the DTA Blocks program;
Page | 13
$200,000 for a watch party; and
$100,000 for America 250 events, which celebrate the 250th anniversary of the United States of
America’s founding.
Any unused funds will drop to fund balance. According to the Administrative Transmittal, money is being raised
to support these events. Council staff has inquired about the Administration’s plans for future Open Streets
events and how much it hopes to raise through fundraising. Answers have not been provided at the time this
report was published, and staff will follow up with more information as it becomes available.
D-5: Streets GO Bonds Interest Reallocation for FY 2025-26. (CIP Fund: One-time -
$1,735,515.83)
In Budget Amendment 2 of FY2026, over $6 million in interest from unspent proceeds of multiple bonds,
including the 2018 Street Reconstruction General Obligation Bonds (2018 GO Bonds), was accounted for and
added to the CIP budget. For General Obligation bonds, the interest revenue may only be spent on the project
types the voters approved – in this case, street reconstruction. Accordingly, in the present budget amendment,
the Administration is proposing to spend the $1,735,515.83 interest from the 2018 GO bonds on street
reconstruction projects, including a long-planned segment on 1700 East from 1700 to 2100 South.
According to the Administration, "When the City borrows at a low tax-exempt interest rate and does not spend
the bond proceeds within three years, any interest earned at a rate higher than the bond’s issuance rate is
considered 'excess' and must be repaid to the U.S. Treasury to preserve the bond’s tax-exempt status." Because
of this time sensitivity, the Administration has requested a straw poll for this item.
Projects using the 2018 GO bonds are chosen according to the values reflected in Engineering's 2022 Six-Year
Plan, which prioritizes streets with the worst pavement condition (the "worst-first" approach) for reconstruction.
The proposed segment of 1700 East is currently shown in "poor" condition on the City's pavement condition
map. The administrative description notes that the project will be coordinated with other agencies, like Public
Utilities, to upgrade infrastructure and minimize disruptions in the near future.
Note: the budget request anticipates additional interest accruing in FY2026 from the same bonds, which could
generate approximately $560,000, to be accounted for in a future budget amendment. If funding permits, the
Administration proposes adding 2100 to 2700 South to the reconstruction on 1700 East, which was in the
original project plan.
The Council may wish to consider straw polling this item.
Sample language: "I propose a straw poll to allocate the interest from FY2025 BA#2 for Streets GO
bonds in the amount of $1,735,515.83, for rebuilds of city streets as determined by the Engineering
Division's Six Year Pavement Plan and the Roadway Selection Committee."
D-6: California Avenue Safety Improvements Rescope. (CIP: One-time - $0)
The Transportation Division proposes to rescope this funding, which was initially a constituent request funded
by the Council in Fall 2024. The rescope would use existing funds to provide additional improvements and
expand the project area to include two nearby schools. Potential improvements include landscaping, lighting,
traffic calming, pedestrian safety improvements and/or school crosswalks.
D-7: CPTED Streetlighting– GF to CIP Transfer. (CIP: One-time - $300,000)
As part of the FY2026 budget, the Mayor’s Recommended Budget included a proposed $300,000 transfer to the
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) within the Non-Departmental section to fund CPTED lighting along the
Jordan River Trail. This transfer was not reflected in the Key Changes document or the CIP Funding Log.
To allow the Administration to proceed with the project, the City Council approved the $300,000 CPTED
funding request at its July 8, 2025 meeting and agreed to update the Key Changes document through a future
budget amendment.
Page | 14
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: Trail Maintenance for Salt Lake City Portion of the Jordan River Trail. (Misc. Grants: One-
time - $57,600)
This item recognizes the City's funding availability grant award in the amount of $57,600 for the
purpose of removing dead and dying trees and other woody vegetation to improve navigability, safety and
beautification of the Jordan River between 1700 South and 900 South. The Public Hearing for this grant was
held November 21, 2025.
Section F: Donations
None
Section G: Council Consent Agenda – Grant Awards
None
Section I: Council Added Items
None
ATTACHMENTS
New Ongoing Costs to the General Fund
Clerk of Court Job Description
ACRONYMS
ACFR – Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
BEMS – Bureau of Emergency Service
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
FTE – Full-time Employee / Equivalent
FY – Fiscal Year
GF – General Fund
IMS – Information Management Services
MCC – Mobile Command Center
Page | 14
Page | 15
Attachment 1: New Ongoing Costs to the General Fund
Council staff has provided the following list of potential new ongoing costs to the General Fund. Many of these
are new FTE’s approved during this fiscal year’s budget amendments, noting that each new FTE increases the
City’s annual budget costs if positions are added to the staffing document. Note that some items in the table
below are partially or fully funded by grants. If a grant continues to be awarded to the City in future years, then
there may not be a cost to the General Fund but grant funding is not guaranteed year-over-year.
BAM#2 D-3 IMS Fund Budget
Carry Forward $159,414 Ongoing -0-
CCAC recommended
funding for multiple
departments to address
compensation for
positions lagging behind
market rate. Changes &
funding weren’t included
in annual budget.
BAM#2
D-4 Language Access
Transfer from Mayor’s
Office
$50,000 Ongoing -0-
Contract language access
services funding was
inadvertently left out of
IMS budget when it was
transferred from Mayor’s
to IMS during the annual
budget.
BAM#3 None.
BAM#4
A-3: Wildland
Firefighting Expansion
Funding
$88,000 One-Time,
$75,000 Ongoing -0-
Reflects additional
resources needed for red
flag days.
A-13: Funding for Gap
in Homeless Resource
Center Grant Funding
for Salaries
$292,833 Ongoing -0-
The State HRC grant
funding was reduced by
$292,833. Funding to
maintain the HRC
functionality levels
matches the reduction.
A-17: Justice Court,
City Prosecutor's
Office and Legal
Defenders Association
(LDA) Staffing
Increases
$1,554,826 Ongoing 8
Annualized, the
additional FY2027
staffing costs are
$1,554,826.
NOTE: Council staff is working with the Administration on clarifications.
Page | 15
Page | 16
Attachment 2: Clerk of Court Job Description
Page | 17
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
Straw Poll Request
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Lehua Weaver, Austin Kimmel, Kira Luke, Allison Rowland,
Sylvia Richards, Michael Sanders, and Kate Werrett
DATE:January 13, 2026
RE:Budget Amendment #4 Straw Polls
STRAW POLL REQUESTS
The Administration has requested straw polls for the following items:
1. A-10: Backhoe for Public Services Streets Division & Tractor for Public Lands Parks Division
2. A-17: Council support to proceed with the appointment process for a sixth Justice Court Judge
3. D-5: Streets GO Bonds Interest Reallocation for FY 2025-26
Sample language for the straw poll:
1. A-10: Backhoe for Public Services Streets Division & Tractor for Public Lands Parks Division
"I propose a straw poll to allocate funds from the General Fund in the amount of $292,819, for the
purchase of replacement equipment for the Streets and Parks Divisions."
2. A-17: Council support to proceed with the appointment process for a sixth Justice Court Judge
"I propose a straw poll to indicate Council support for the Administration to proceed with the
appointment process for a sixth Justice Court Judge.”
3. D-5: Streets GO Bonds Interest Reallocation for FY 2025-26
"I propose a straw poll to allocate the interest from FY2025 BA#2 for Streets GO bonds in the amount
of $1,735,515.83, for rebuilds of city streets as determined by the Engineering Division's Six Year
Pavement Plan and the Roadway Selection Committee."
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
01/08/2026
Date Sent to Council:
01/08/2026
From:
Department *
Finance
Employee Name:
Hillier, Randy
E-mail
Randy.Hillier@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
01/08/2026
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
01/08/2026
Subject:
FY26 Budget Amendment #4 Retransmittal
New transmittal or
Revision
New transmittal
Revision
Revision Updates:
This is a retransmittal of Budget Amendment #4. There were changes it items A-17 and A-18, item A-19 was withdrawn and item A-20 was added. This transmittal also includes an updated version of the Impact Fee report and Fund Balance.
Additional Staff Contact:
Greg Cleary, Mary Beth Thompson
Presenters/Staff Table
Greg Cleary: greg.cleary@slc.gov and Mary Beth Thompson: marybeth.thompson@slc.gov
Document Type
Ordinance
Recommendation:
The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2026 adopted budget
Background/Discussion
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $8,650,923 in expenses in the general fund. The amendment proposes changes in seven (7) funds, with a total revenue increase of $16,614,942 and a corresponding expenditure increase of $16,847,383. The proposal includes the addition of eight (8) general fund-funded positions.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
Public Hearing
Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement.
Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Provide your perspective on the value of recommending a public hearing
NA
Public Process
Public Hearing
This page has intentionally been left blank
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET
PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
___________________________________ Date Received: _______________
Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: __________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: January 8, 2025
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: FY26 Budget Amendment #4 - Retransmittal
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT: Mary Beth Thompson, Greg Cleary
DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing,
the City Council adopt the following amendments to the Fiscal Year 2026 adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND $0.00 $8,650,923.00
FLEET FUND 1,581,719.00 1,581,719.00
CIP FUND 5,798,741.00 6,298,741.00
REFUSE FUND 8,918,482.00 0.00
GOLF FUND 250,000.00 250,000.00
IMS FUND 9,000.00 9,000.00
MISC GRANTS FUND 57,000.00 57,000.00
TOTAL $16,614,942.00 $16,847,383.00
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY 2026 Budget Adjustments
The chart below presents General Fund Projected Revenues for FY 2026. Based on revenue data across the first
part of the fiscal year, it is projected that revenues will be realized at approximately $368,733 beyond the FY
2026 Adopted Budget.
Revenue FY26 Annual Budget
FY26 Amended
Budget Projection
Amended Variance
Favorable/(Unfavorable)
Property Taxes 148,580,334 148,580,334 148,580,334 -
Sales, Use & Excise Taxes 126,026,000 126,026,000 126,000,000 (26,000)
Franchise Taxes 17,220,000 17,220,000 17,339,305 119,305
Total Taxes 291,826,334 291,826,334 291,919,639 93,305
Charges For Services 6,821,820 6,821,820 5,056,754 (1,765,066)
Fines & Forfeitures 3,085,827 3,085,827 3,074,937 (10,890)
Interest Income 9,000,000 9,000,000 9,000,000 -
Interfund Service Charges 34,569,169 34,569,169 34,574,395 5,226
Intergovernmental Revenue 6,205,000 6,205,000 6,073,983 (131,017)
Licenses 21,847,694 21,847,694 22,024,495 176,801
Miscellaneous Revenue 3,838,663 3,838,663 3,808,672 (29,991)
Parking Meter Revenue 3,273,255 3,273,255 3,956,050 682,795
Parking Tickets 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 -
Permits 18,981,859 18,981,859 20,235,322 1,253,463
Property Sale Proceeds - - 24,741 24,741
Gain on Property Dispositions - - 272 272
Rental & Other Income 1,201,460 1,201,460 1,270,554 69,094
Operating Transfers In 24,780,192 24,780,192 24,780,192 -
Total W/O Special Tax 135,804,939 135,804,939 136,080,367 275,428
Sales Tax Addition 1/2%58,000,000 58,000,000 58,000,000 -
Total General Fund 485,631,273 485,631,273 486,000,006 368,733
The table below presents updated Fund Balance numbers and percentages, based on the proposed changes
included in Budget Amendment #4.
With the complete adoption of Budget Amendment #4, the available fund balance will remain at 16.91 percent
of the FY 2026 Adopted Budget. For context, at budget adoption fund balance was at 12.91 percent.
FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL
Beginning Fund Balance 27,841,978 146,448,554 174,290,532 22,746,360 120,121,319 142,867,679
Prior Year Encumbrances (3,547,119) (18,657,815) (22,204,934) - - (18,919,920)
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 24,294,859$ 127,790,739$ 152,085,598$ 22,746,360$ 120,121,319$ 123,947,759$
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 39.57%30.50%31.66%38.72%26.47%24.19%
Year End ACFR Adjustments
Revenue Changes
Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (3,188,435) (3,188,435) 15,024 15,024
Fund Balance w/ ACFR Changes 24,294,859 124,602,304 148,897,163 22,746,360 120,136,343 123,962,783
Final Fund Balance Percent 39.57%29.74%30.99%38.72%26.48%24.19%
Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (4,162,906) (36,664,442) (40,827,348) - (27,392,780) (27,392,780)
Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance
BA#1 Revenue Adjustment 469,408 469,408
BA#1 Expense Adjustment (2,468,933) (2,468,933) (358,000) (358,000)
BA#2 Revenue Adjustment 102,000 102,000
BA#2 Expense Adjustment (3,407,524) (3,407,524) (913,000) (913,000)
BA#3 Revenue Adjustment 3,904,861 3,904,861
BA#3 Expense Adjustment (3,959,861) (3,959,861) -
BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - -
BA#4 Expense Adjustment - - (8,650,923) (8,650,923)
BA#5 Revenue Adjustment 1,013,067 1,013,067
BA#5 Expense Adjustment (5,200,000) (4,736,688) (9,936,688)
BA#6 Revenue Adjustment -
BA#6 Expense Adjustment
Change in Revenue
Change in Expense
Fund Balance Budgeted Increase
Adjusted Fund Balance 22,746,360 120,121,319 142,867,679 22,746,360 82,821,640 86,648,080
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 37.05%28.67%29.74%38.72%18.25%16.91%
Projected Revenue 61,397,384 419,006,975 480,404,359 58,749,999 453,721,525 512,471,524
Salt Lake City
General Fund
TOTAL
Fund Balance Projections
FY2026 BudgetFY2025 Budget
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $8,650,923 in expenses in the
general fund. The amendment proposes changes in seven (7) funds, with a total revenue increase
of $16,614,942 and a corresponding expenditure increase of $16,847,383. The proposal includes
the addition of eight (8) general fund-funded positions.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration
requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The budget amendment is separated in eight different categories:
A. New Budget Items
B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C. Grants for New Staff Resources
D. Housekeeping Items
E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F. Donations
G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I. Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
This page has intentionally been left blank
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2026
(Fourth amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City,
including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year
2025-2026)
An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2025, which adopted the
Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2025, and Ending
June 30, 2026.
In June of 2025, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,
Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2025, and ending June 30, 2026, pursuant to the requirements of Utah Code section 10-6-118.
The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with
the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically
stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and
inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized
by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2025.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes
specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same
hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the
amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 2025, and ending June 30, 2026, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128 of
the Utah Code.
SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is
authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the
office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ____ day of _____, 2026.
Chris Wharton, Council Chair
ATTEST:
Keith Reynolds, City Recorder
Transmitted to the Mayor on
Mayor’s Action: Approved Vetoed
Mayor Erin Mendenhall
ATTEST:
Keith Reynolds, City
Recorder
(SEAL)
Bill No. ____ of 2026.
Published
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
Jaysen Oldroyd Jaysen Oldroyd
This page has intentionally been left blank
Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure
Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 Vehicle Replacement for Urban Services Division GF 0.00 (37,000.00)One-time -
1 Vehicle Replacement for Urban Services Division GF 0.00 37,000.00 One-time -
1 Vehicle Replacement for Urban Services Division Fleet 37,000.00 37,000.00 One-time -
2 Trailer for Facilities Division GF 0.00 (30,000.00)One-time -
2 Trailer for Facilities Division GF 0.00 30,000.00 One-time -
2 Trailer for Facilities Division Fleet 30,000.00 30,000.00 One-time -
3 Wildland Firefighting Expansion Funding GF 0.00 88,000.00 One-time/Ongoing -
4 Public Lands One-time Personal Services Budget Rescope for
Equipment Purchases GF 0.00 (163,900.00)One-time -
4 Public Lands One-time Personal Services Budget Rescope for
Equipment Purchases GF 0.00 163,900.00 One-time -
4 Public Lands One-time Personal Services Budget Rescope for
Equipment Purchases Fleet 163,900.00 163,900.00 One-time -
5 Park Land Acquisition CIP 0.00 (405,000.00)One-time -
5 Park Land Acquisition CIP 0.00 405,000.00
6 Pedestrian Bridge Over the Surplus Canal at Glendale Golf
Course GF 0.00 250,000.00 One-time -
6 Pedestrian Bridge Over the Surplus Canal at Glendale Golf
Course Golf 250,000.00 250,000.00 One-time -
7 Moved to Housekeeping
8 Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
9 Public Services Facilities Division: Old Library Immediate
Facility Needs GF 0.00 195,000.00 One-time -
10 Backhoe for Public Services Streets Division & Tractor for
Public Lands Parks Division GF 0.00 292,819.00 One-time -
10 Backhoe for Public Services Streets Division & Tractor for
Public Lands Parks Division Fleet 292,819.00 292,819.00 One-time -
11 Old Library, Plaza 349 and Justice Courts Capital
Improvements CIP 5,498,741.00 5,498,741.00 One-time -
11 Old Library, Plaza 349 and Justice Courts Capital
Improvements GF 0.00 889,800.00 One-time -
12 Trailer for Public Services Streets Division GF 0.00 (58,000.00)One-time -
12 Trailer for Public Services Streets Division GF 0.00 58,000.00 One-time -
12 Trailer for Public Services Streets Division Fleet 58,000.00 58,000.00 One-time -
13 Funding for Gap in Homeless Resource Center Grant
Funding for Salaries GF 0.00 292,833.00 Ongoing -
14 Police Overtime Funding in FY 2026 GF 0.00 3,810,941.00 One-time -
15 Police Retirements Cost GF 0.00 977,286.00 One-time -
16 Police Mobile Command Center GF 0.00 1,000,000.00 One-time -
16 Police Mobile Command Center Fleet 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 One-time -
17 Justice Court, City Prosecutor's Office and Legal Defenders
Association (LDA) Staffing Increases GF 0.00 189,749.00 Ongoing 8.00
17 Justice Court, City Prosecutor's Office and Legal Defenders
Association (LDA) Staffing Increases IMS 9,000.00 9,000.00 One-time -
18 Parking Way-finding Signage GF 0.00 584,495.00 One-time -
19 Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
20 Funding for Fisher Mansion CIP 0.00 500,000.00 One-time -
1 Legislative Affairs Operations Funding GF 0.00 80,000.00 Ongoing -
2 Engineering Planning and Design Housekeeping and
Rescope GF 0.00 (350,000.00)One-time -
2 Engineering Planning and Design Housekeeping and
Rescope GF 0.00 350,000.00 One-time -
3 Refuse Fund Revenue Budget for Lease Agreement Refuse 8,918,482.00 0.00 One-time -
4 Community Events - Rescope GF 0.00 0.00 One-time -
Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Section A: New Items
Section D: Housekeeping
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
1
Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
5 Streets GO Bonds Interest Reallocation for FY 2025-26 CIP 0.00 (1,735,515.83)One-time -
5 Streets GO Bonds Interest Reallocation for FY 2025-27 CIP 0.00 1,735,515.83 One-time -
6 California Avenue Safety Improvements Rescope CIP 0.00 0.00 One-time -
7 CPTED Streetlight – GF to CIP Transfer CIP 300,000.00 300,000.00 One-time
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
1 Trail Maintenance for Salt Lake City Portion of the Jordan
River Trail Misc Grants 57,000.00 57,000.00 One-time -
Consent Agenda
Total of Budget Amendment
Items 16,614,942.00 16,847,383.00 0.00 0.00 8.00
Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure
Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Total by Fund, Budget Amendment #4:
General Fund GF 0.00 8,650,923.00 0.00 0.00 8.00
Fleet Fund Fleet 1,581,719.00 1,581,719.00 0.00 0.00
CIP Fund CIP 5,798,741.00 6,298,741.00 0.00 0.00
Refuse Collection Fund Refuse 8,918,482.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Golf Fund Golf 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 0.00
IMS Fund IMS 9,000.00 9,000.00 0.00 0.00
Misc Grants Fund Misc Grants 57,000.00 57,000.00 0.00 0.00 -
Total of Budget Amendment Items 16,614,942.00 16,847,383.00 0.00 0.00 8.00
Administration Proposed Council Approved
Section I: Council Added Items
Section F: Donations
Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards
2
Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2025-26 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
FY 2025-26 Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue
General Fund (FC 100)453,721,525 0.00 - - 453,721,525.09
Debt Service Fund (FC 101)30,514,822 30,514,822.00
Other Improvement Fund (FC 150)3,000 3,000.00
Capital Improvement Fund (FC 300)41,675,084 12,206,670.04 5,798,741.00 59,680,495.04
Water Utility Fund (FC 400)192,010,432 51,079,400.00 243,089,832.00
Sewer Utility Fund (FC 410)357,160,859 357,160,859.00
Stormwater Utility Fund (FC 420)25,327,969 2,000,000.00 27,327,969.00
Street Lighting Utility Fund (FC 430)5,874,881 5,874,881.00
Department of Airports Fund (FC 540)606,598,500 - 606,598,500.00
Fleet Management Fund (FC 610)23,925,700 - 1,581,719.00 25,507,419.00
Risk Management Fund (FC 620)69,846,524 69,846,524.37
Governmental Immunity Fund (FC 630)4,529,865 4,529,865.00
Information Mgt Serv Fund (FC 650)43,052,934 50,000.00 9,000.00 43,111,934.00
Local Building Authority Fund (FC 660)1,172,525 1,172,525.00
Refuse Collection Fund (FC670)25,469,123 8,918,482.00 34,387,605.00
Golf Fund (FC 680)14,156,634 250,000.00 14,406,634.00
Housing and Loan Fund (FC 690)14,082,500 14,082,500.00
CDBG Fund (FC 710)4,885,779 4,885,779.00
Miscellaneous Grants Fund (FC 720)12,714,477 3,490,212.72 4,139,704.89 57,000.00 20,401,394.61
Demolition Weed and Forfeiture (FC 730)4,365,000 4,365,000.00
Emergency 911 Dispatch (FC 750)4,295,000 4,295,000.00
Downtown Alliance Fund (FC 760)1,700,000 2,500,000.00 4,200,000.00
Donations Fund (FC 770)500,000 500,000.00
Funding Our Future Fund (FC 780)58,749,999 58,749,999.00
Transportation Fund (FC 785)14,332,500 14,332,500.00
DEA Taskforce (FC 901)1,159,208 1,159,207.61
Community Reinvestment Agency Fund (FC 920)86,036,232 86,036,232.00
Sports Arena Fund (FC 740)79,512,660 79,512,660.00
Emergency Loan Program Fund - 273,000.00
Total of Budget Amendment Items 2,177,373,732 273,000.00 71,326,282.76 4,139,704.89 16,614,942.00 - 2,269,454,661.72
3
Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Total Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense
General Fund (FC 100)464,359,952 353,000.00 913,000.00 8,650,923.00 474,276,875.26
Debt Service Fund (FC 101)36,589,783 36,589,783.00
Other Improvement Fund (FC 150)3,000 3,000.00
Capital Improvement Fund (FC 300)48,175,084 16,339,140.04 6,298,741.00 70,812,965.04
Water Utility Fund (FC 400)216,611,815 66,849,851.00 283,461,666.00
Sewer Utility Fund (FC 410)159,022,034 12,083,142.00 171,105,176.00
Stormwater Utility Fund (FC 420)26,465,800 7,349,551.00 33,815,351.30
Street Lighting Utility Fund (FC 430)8,418,357 1,327,234.00 9,745,591.00
Department of Airports Fund (FC 540)476,954,577 100,000.00 477,054,577.00
Fleet Management Fund (FC 610)23,735,252 13,202,498.00 1,581,719.00 38,519,469.00
Risk Management Fund (FC 620)69,846,524 69,846,524.37
Governmental Immunity Fund (FC 630)4,302,013 94,791.00 4,396,804.00
Information Mgt Serv Fund (FC 650)43,052,934 2,451,295.18 9,000.00 45,513,229.18
Local Building Authority Fund (FC 660)1,172,525 1,172,525.00
Refuse Collection Fund (FC670)29,357,332 9,350,559.00 - 38,707,891.00
Golf Fund (FC 680)26,570,200 957,404.00 250,000.00 27,777,604.00
Housing and Loan Fund (FC 690)14,082,500 14,082,500.00
CDBG Fund (FC 710)4,885,779 4,885,779.00
Miscellaneous Grants Fund (FC 720)12,714,477 3,490,212.72 4,139,704.89 57,000.00 20,401,394.61
Demolition Weed and Forfeiture (FC 730)4,365,000 4,365,000.00
Emergency 911 Dispatch (FC 750)9,646,688 9,646,688.00
Downtown Alliance Fund (FC 760)1,700,000 2,500,000.00 4,200,000.00
Donations Fund (FC 770)500,000 500,000.00
Funding Our Future Fund (FC 780)48,111,572 48,111,571.83
Transportation Fund (FC 785)15,106,833 15,106,833.00
DEA Taskforce (FC 901)1,159,208 1,159,207.61
Community Reinvestment Agency Fund (FC 920)86,036,232 86,036,232.00
Sports Arena Fund (FC 740)79,512,660 79,512,660.00
-
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,912,458,131 353,000.00 137,008,677.94 4,139,704.89 16,847,383.00 - 2,070,806,897.20
4
Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Finance Department
City Council Office
Contingent Appropriation / Notes
5
This page has intentionally been left blank
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
1
Section A: New Items
A-1: Vehicle Replacement for Urban Services
Division GF One-time ($37,000.00)
GF One-time $37,000.00
Fleet One-time $37,000.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: JP Goates, Julie Crookston, Kimberley
Schmeling
For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro, JP Goates, Julie Crookston and Kimberley Schmeling
In April 2025, a compliance enforcement officer was involved in an accident that led to the total loss of one of the
division's Chevy Bolt vehicles. There were no other vehicles involved; the officers swerved to avoid hitting an animal in
the roadway. Since the City is self-insured, Urban Services is fully responsible for the replacement cost of the vehicle.
Since the accident, the division has been using bikes in warmer weather but will need to use a loaner vehicle from the
Fleet Division once bike season ends. However, this is a temporary fix. To regain full operational capacity, the Urban
Services Division is proposing transferring $37,000 from its operational budget to the Fleet Division to purchase a new
Chevy Bolt. This new vehicle is essential for th e division's operations, as it will replace the lost asset and help maintain
enforcement efficiency and revenue generation.
A-2: Trailer for Facilities Division GF One-time ($30,000.00)
GF One-time $30,000.00
Fleet One-time $30,000.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: JP Goates, Riley Bird, Kimberley
Schmeling
For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro, JP Goates, Riley Bird and Kimberley Schmeling
When the division of Urban Services was created in FY 2026, personnel and equipment were moved from the Facilities
division to Urban Services division. A drop-down trailer, previously an asset of the Facilities team used to move large
equipment, including two scissor lifts, was no longer available for maintena nce and repair work completed by the staff in
that division. An increase in workload related to the Clean City initiative at Urban Services means the trailer is in use
full-time by that team. A drop-down trailer is the safest and most efficient way to move critical large equipment.
Without it, operations are delayed and safety risks increase. Leasing a trailer is not a practical alternative as equipment
is moved daily and is an ongoing need. The Division of Facilities Services is seeking to transfer funds from their
operating budget to Fleet to purchase the trailer needed. No new funds are being requested.
A-3: Wildland Firefighting Expansion Funding GF One-time/
Ongoing $88,000.00
Department: Fire Prepared By: Chief Lieb, Brittany Blair
For questions, please include Chief Lieb and Brittany Blair
The Fire Department is requesting funding to support the expanding needs of our wildland firefighting program, as
wildfire risk increases and conditions continue to change in the region. According to the National Interagency Fire
Center based in Boise, ID, the total number of wildfires nationwide have increased significantly over the last five years.
These fires range from human caused, to natural caused, to cause undetermined. The contributing factors for wildland
fires are the increase in urban centers pushing up against wildland urban interface areas, such as the east and north
benches in SLC, water content in the fuels, environmental temperatures, humidity, and wind speed.
The current request totals $88,000 for the remainder of this fiscal year, $75,000 of which will be ongoing costs (see the
table below). These funds will cover the days of increased staffing during 2025 for periods of extreme fire weather during
July through October, increased wildland training requirements, additional personal protective equipment (PPE), tools,
such as hoses, nozzles and hand tools, and the replacement of aging Bendix King radios, which are over ten years old and
no longer manufactured. The Bendix King radios are the standard radio used in wildland operations and are essential for
the firefighting teams to communicate and coordinate on-scene with our state and regional partners during an event.
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
2
The ongoing request also supports anticipated annual upstaffing needs driven by increasing red flag days, recurring PPE
purchases, further equipment replacement due to loss or damage, expanded wildland training, and ongoing radio
maintenance and replacement.
Category
Personnel
FY26 Request
$25,000
Ongoing Request
$40,000
PPE Equipment $28,000 $25,000
Radios $35,000 $10,000
Total $88,000 $75,000
A-4: Public Lands One-time Personal Services
Budget Rescope for Equipment Purchases GF One-time ($163,900.00)
GF One-time $163,000.00
Fleet One-time $163,900.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Gregg Evans
For questions, please include Gregg Evans
The Public Lands Department is requesting to rescope $163,900 in existing FY 2026 personnel budget which, if
approved, will be transferred to the Fleet Fund as one-time funding for the purchase of capital equipment. The funds
being requested for this transfer to Fleet were generated from attrition and vacancy savings from the first half of th is
fiscal year. Savings are generated throughout the fiscal year from positions remaining vacant during the typical hiring
process, especially when there is difficulty in hiring some positions. The Department continually tracks the duration of
all vacancies to calculate the estimated savings.
The Department is proposing to use the one-time funds to purchase the equipment detailed below.
• $50,300 - Kubota RTV Utility Vehicle, this new unit will support the ongoing watering of newly planted
trees throughout the maintenance district 2 area. Currently, staff are using a 1 -ton dump truck for tree watering,
adding this vehicle will free up a 1-ton truck in District 2 used for watering trees to be repurposed to the detail
(rag) crew in District 2.
• $47,500 - Toro Dingo to replace stolen trencher (Unit # 81510) with a new trencher.
• $15,600 – Aerator, the new aerator requested will help prevent soil compaction in high-use common and
spectator areas at the Regional Athletic Complex (RAC). Currently, the RAC does not own an aerator and has
relied on borrowing the Parks Department’s unit for more than five years. The current unit will be repurposed to
perform turf aeration on park properties throughout the City.
• $50,500 - Caterpillar model 302 C3 small excavator for trail repairs and maintenance. The primary
purpose of this new machine will be in-house trail construction and maintenance performed by the Trails Team.
Currently, all machine work on trails is either contracted out with variable results or completed using rented
equipment at a cost of approximately $4,000 per month. The Trails Team now has an experienced machine
operator on staff with six years of trail construction and maintenance experience, allowing this work to be
completed internally with greater consistency and higher quality results. In addition, this excavator would also
support restoration projects, fire mitigation efforts, and vegetation management across Natural Lands
properties.
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
3
A-5: Park Land Acquisition CIP One-time ($405,000.00)
CIP One-time $405,000.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Gregg Evans
For questions, please include Gregg Evans
The Public Lands Department in coordination with Real Estate Services is requesting a budget amendment in the
amount of $405,000 that will utilize Parks Impact Fees to fund the acquisition of 1.09 acres of open space.
A-6: Pedestrian Bridge Over the Surplus Canal
at Glendale Golf Course GF One-time $250,000.00
Golf One-time $250,000.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Mark Stephens, Dawn Valente
For questions, please include Mark Stephens, Dawn Valente and Tammy Hunsaker
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Salt Lake County Flood Control (SLCoFC) identified multiple
unpermitted encroachment violations along the Surplus Canal located within the geographic boundaries of Salt Lake
City. Resolution of these encroachment violations were shared between SLC Public Utilities, SLC Engineering and the
SLC Airport. One of the major encroachment violations assigned to SLC Engineering was the permitting and erosion
control of an existing, previously constructed pedestrian bridge at the Glendale Golf Course spanning the Surplus Levee
Canal.
The above-mentioned USACE design review process and approvals have taken years, and until recently Engineering did
not know when the final USACE would be approved. Now that the USACE has provided approval, project bidding and
construction is considered urgent, and as such, obtaining funding through a budget amendment process has been
deemed the best approach in lieu of waiting for the next Capital Asset Planning process.
The $250,000 requested in this amendment is to cover construction costs associated with installing the erosion control
rip-rap revetment under the existing bridge surrounding the piles driven into the canal that support the bridge structure
above. USACE requires the placement of this revetment t o treat existing erosion and to prevent further erosion around
the pedestrian bridge piles that support the structure. This will also ensure and protect the structural integrity of the
Surplus Canal banks. Increases to flood insurance costs could be incurred by surrounding residents and businesses if the
City does not address this violation.
Part of the reason for the emergency is that as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) updates their Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) based on levee conditions reported by USACE, any lacking levee deficiency , such as the one
to be rectified by the proposed project, poses the risk for flood insurance rates to be increased for those properties,
homes and businesses protected by the levee.
A-7: Moved to Housekeeping as D-6
A-8: Withdrawn
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
4
A-9: Public Services Facilities Division: Old
Library Immediate Facility Needs GF One-time $195,000.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: JP Goates, Josh Lander, Kimberley
Schmeling
For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro, JP Goates, Josh Lander and Kimberley Schmeling
Maintenance activities began in September of this year with miscellaneous repairs for The Leonardo, but when the
building was vacated by the tenant and turned over to the City, activities have ramped up and have included but have not
been limited to:
- grounds maintenance,
- repairs to doors, plumbing, electrical and mechanical systems,
- janitorial and moving services, and
- security.
Work on these items needs to continue at a minimum to keep the building functional and secure. Public Services is
requesting $195,000 to continue maintenance and security efforts. The largest of these expenses will be $130,000 for
security access and camera installations; the remaining funding will be for the maintenance expenses listed above.
Security updates have been deemed necessary because the building’s existing access control system is outdated and in
need of repair. In addition, the city no longer has licensing for Mellennium, which means City badges cannot be
programmed to work with the existing system. Also, since this is a City building, the City’s Security Director has
requested that cameras be installed to monitor the site.
A-10: Backhoe for Public Services Streets
Division & Tractor for Public Lands Parks
Division
GF One-time $292,819.00
Fleet One-time $292,819.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Julie Crookston, Kimberley
Schmeling
For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro, Julie Crookston and Kimberley Schmeling
Two assets -- one in Public Lands and one in Streets -- have recently experienced severe and unrepairable breaks.
Public Lands Tractor – This asset had a catastrophic break occur recently. It will cost about $7,000 to repair.
However, prior to the break the estimated value of the asset was no more than $1,000 due to its age and continued heavy
use. The tractor was originally purchased in 2008 and has been eligible for replacement since August 2023. Due to
volume of assets needing replaced, both in Public Lands and throughout the City, replacement of other older or more
critical assets have taken priority. Of the 52 assets Public Lands needed replaced, this tractor was originally 37 th on the
list in order of seniority. Fleet and Public Lands have now determined this tractor needs to be replaced as soon as
possible, rather than waiting for the FY 2027 replacement cycle. Parks District 1 (serving Pioneer Park, Riverside Park,
Cottonwood Park, etc.) uses this asset heavily since it has many different attachments which allow it to be used for a
variety of tasks. For example, it is used in the spring as a seed spreader and fertilizer. In the fall, it is used as a leaf
collector, leaf blower, and a sweeper. In the summer it functions as a backup mower. There are no rental options
available for this type of tractor. It is imperative this asset is replaced with one that is compatible with all the
attachments we already own. Fleet has committed all of the FY 2026 replacement funding and is unable to cover the cost
of replacing this asset. Likewise, Public Lands does not have enough projected end-of-year savings to cover the cost. The
cost of replacing the tractor is $55,819. The lead time for this asset is a minimum of three months .
Streets Backhoe – This asset also suffered a catastrophic break. The current estimated value of the backhoe prior to
the break was about $27,000. The repairs needed are estimated to cost over $40,000, and due to the nature of the
required repairs, it is likely there will continue to be repair issues with this asset even after the repairs. As such, it is not
economical to repair the backhoe.
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
5
This asset was not projected to be eligible for replacement until 2027. After review, it was determined there was no abuse
by the users, and the asset was being used appropriately and for its intended purpose. This asset is heavily utilized,
creating a large amount of wear and tear. It has been operated by the concrete crews as they repair concrete throughout
the City and is vital to their work excavating damaged concrete prior to pouring new concrete. Th is asset needs to be
replaced as soon as possible rather than waiting for the FY 2027 replacement cycle. There are no rental options available
for this exact size, and a smaller backhoe would greatly decrease efficiency of the team, creating a reduction of service.
Fleet has committed all FY 2026 replacement funding and is unable to cover the cost of replacing this asset. Likewise,
Streets does not have enough projected end-of-year savings to cover the cost. The cost of replacing the backhoe is
$237,000.
In the backup documentation quotes for both assets are provided. Public Services is also requesting a straw poll for this
BA, to allow the orders to be placed as soon as possible, and thus delivered as quickly as possible.
A-11: Old Library, Plaza 349 and Justice Courts
Capital Improvements CIP One-time $5,498,741.00
GF One-Time 889,800.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Jorge Chamorro, JP Goates,
Kimberley Schmeling
For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro, JP Goates and Kimberley Schmeling
To support internal growth, with the most pressing one being the addition of a new judge and their supportive staff at the
Justice Courts building, and to address space constraints in several City offices, the City plans to reinvest in three key
facilities: the Old Library, Plaza 349 and Justice Courts. This initiative may include completing essential infrastructure
upgrades (elevators, HVAC, etc.) at the Old Library (former Leonardo museum), converting into a mixed-use space
including City offices on the third floor and classrooms, meeting, and gallery space on the second floor, and additional
administrative offices on the first floor.
It also includes addressing aging systems at Plaza 349 and supporting the relocation of certain Justice Courts staff. This
will allow time for the City to explore alternatives to adequately house the Justice Courts.
The Department intends to utilize the interest accrued from the tax-exempt bond. Upon review, it has been determined
that the above-mentioned project costs are eligible to be covered by bond interest proceeds.
The Architectural team has prepared a high-level estimate of $5,498,741. The project includes interior renovations to
accommodate the Justice Courts ($300,000), critical repairs to the elevators ($250,000), storm dr ainage ($36,000), and
tech ($75,000). Permits will cost $45,000. Design, engineering and project management ($822,941), and
construction/general contracting, and contingencies ($3,080,000) make up the bulk of the expense. F urniture, fixtures
and equipment (FF+E) expenses ($889,800) round out the budget.
The FF+E will not be included in bond interest financing and will be supported by General Fund Fund Balance.
A-12: Trailer for Public Services Streets Division GF One-time ($58,000.00)
GF One-time $58,000.00
Fleet One-time $58,000.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Julie Crookston, James Aguilar,
Kimberley Schmeling
For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro, Julie Crookston, James Aguilar and Kimberley
Schmeling
A trailer used by the Streets division in Public Services has suffered a permanent break. The metal frame has cracked and
is unrepairable. This trailer is a critical piece of equipment used by Streets' asphalt crews to haul equipment to roadways
when they are performing more robust asphalt repairs, such as repairing larger than normal potholes and doing inlays.
This asset was not projected to be eligible for replacement until 2027. After a review it was determined there was no
abuse by the users, and the asset was being used appropriately and for its intended purpose. This asset is heavily utilized,
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
6
thus creating a large amount of wear and tear. Fleet has committed all the FY 2026 replacement funding and is unable to
cover the cost of replacing this asset this year. Streets is currently projected to have enough end -of-year savings to cover
the cost of replacing this trailer. This amendment is to transfer $58,000 from Streets to Fleet cover the cost of replacing
the asset.
A-13: Funding for Gap in Homeless Resource
Center Grant Funding for Salaries GF Ongoing $292,833.00
Department: Police Prepared By: David Pond, Shellie Dietrich
For questions, please include Chief Redd, Shellie Dietrich and David Pond
Budget for HRC mitigation officer salary portion not covered by the State HRC grant $292,833. The amount of funding
awarded for the FY 2026 HRC mitigation grant to cover the 19.0 employees is $2,735,048 which was a reduction of
$210,909 from FY 2025 funded at $2,945,957. The total estimated personnel cost is $3,027,881 requiring a budget of
$292,833 for FY 2026 general fund. The existing funding provides for 19 FTE's, which is three squads and a supervising
Lieutenant. To maintain functionality at the Homeless Resource Center, Police needs to keep staffing at this level.
A-14: Police Overtime Funding in FY 2026 GF Ongoing $3,810,941.00
Department: Police Prepared By: David Pond, Shellie Dietrich
For questions, please include Chief Redd, Shellie Dietrich and David Pond
The police department is requesting additional funding to cover overtime expense. This cost is currently budgeted at
$3,993,611 and the department does not have anticipated vacancy savings to cover overtime. The total overtime in FY
2026 is not expected to reach the FY 2025 total cost of $8,244,009 but is trending at the FY 2024 actuals of $7,804,990.
The police department utilizes overtime to manage shift coverage in the heavy summer months, provide mitigation,
proactive enforcement, and staff special events. In FY 2025, the department had an overtime budget of $6 ,886,430 and
utilized vacancy savings to cover the additional costs above budget. This year the department does not anticipate vacancy
savings and is requesting additional budget of $3,810,941.
With the changes in the department organization structure, staff, and staffing levels; the department is working to make
long-term improvements to reduce the need for overtime at this level. This will take time, and this budget item is a one-
time request with the intention to support the remainder of FY 2026.
The police department is requesting additional funds to cover overtime.
Ongoing: $2,493,611
Funded in MRB: $1,500,000
FY 26 Budget $3,993,611
FY 26 Expense to date: $3,301,926
FY 26 Trending $7,804,553
FY 26 additional funds needed $3,810,941
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
7
A-15: Police Retirements Cost GF One-time $977,286.00
Department: Police Prepared By: David Pond, Shellie Dietrich
For questions, please include Chief Redd, Shellie Dietrich and David Pond
The police department is requesting additional funding to cover retirement payouts. This cost is not currently budgeted,
and the department does not have anticipated vacancy savings to cover this cost.
Personnel costs for Retirement and severance:
Retirement and Severance Payout Amount through 10/31 $805,286
Known Pending Retirements through 1/31/2026 $172,000
Total $977,286
A-16: Police Mobile Command Center GF One-time $1,000,000
Fleet One-time $1,000,000
Department: Police Prepared By: David Pond, Shellie Dietrich
For questions, please include Chief Redd, Shellie Dietrich and David Pond
A mobile command center is needed by the police department to manage on scene response and presence at natural
disasters, large scale events, events with long durations, special events and protests. A lead time of 1 year requires budget
in FY 2026 to facilitate delivery and availability for large events scheduled for Early 2027.
Mobile Command Center (MCC) - The police department is requesting one-time funding to acquire a mobile command
center. The estimated cost is $1,000,000.
This funding request seeks support for the acquisition of a Mobile Command Center (MCC) to significantly improve the
operational capabilities the Police Department. The MCC will serve as a critical asset in managing emergencies,
coordinating multi-agency responses, and ensuring public safety during high-risk incidents and large-scale events. The
investment aligns with city and state priorities for public safety, emergency preparedness, community resilience and the
Public Safety Plan.
Our jurisdiction faces a growing number of complex public safety challenges, including:
• Natural disasters (earthquakes, wildfires, floods, severe weather)
• Mass casualty incidents and active shooter events
• Large public gatherings and civil disturbances
• Infrastructure failures and cybersecurity threats
Having a MCC will provide the tools necessary to meet those challenges and:
• Enhance emergency response times and coordination.
• Improve situational awareness and decision-making during critical incidents.
• Provide a secure and centralized location for command operations.
• Increase community engagement and visibility during public events.
• Increase public confidence in law enforcement preparedness.
Currently, Salt Lake City Police lacks a mobile, self-sufficient platform to coordinate field operations during such events.
The police department had a motorhome which was recently disposed of by fleet that was purchased used in 2001 that
hasn’t been functional or operable for a year. As a result, the department relies on neighboring local or state agencies for
use of a command center during critical incidents. While the fire department has a mobile command center, in a major
response to a disaster, critical incident or major event, both departments will need on-scene command capabilities to
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
8
manage resources and response. This request ensures both departments can operate independently and effectively
during major incidents.
This gap limits our ability to respond swiftly, communicate effectively, and manage resources efficiently in dynamic
environments.
The Mobile Command Center represents a strategic investment in public safety infrastructure. With support for funding,
the Police Department will be better equipped to protect lives, property, and critical infrastructure during emergencies
and high-risk events. The Police Department respectfully requests consideration for funding to support this vital
initiative.
A-17: Justice Court, City Prosecutor's Office and
Legal Defenders Association (LDA) Staffing
Increases
GF Ongoing $189,749.00
IMS One-time $9,000.00
Department: Justice Court / Attorney’s Office Prepared By: Ben Luedtke
For questions, please include Ben Luedtke, Cindy Lou Trishman, Mark Kittrell, Kathryn Fairchild
Justice Court, City Prosecutor's Office, and Legal Defenders Association (LDA) Staffing Increases
($189,749 from General Fund Balance of which $174,220 is ongoing for personnel, $6,529 is ongoing for Justice Court
operations, and $9,000 is one-time to the IMS Fund for computers)
The Administration is proposing funding to add a total of 11 FTEs across the three offices including four FTEs at the
Justice Court, four FTEs at the City Prosecutor’s Office, and funding for three FTEs at the LDA (who are not City
employees). If this item is approved as proposed plus a sixth judge, then the FY2027 annual budget would need
$1,554,826 to cover the fully loaded annual costs. Details of the proposed positions and costs are provided below and
grouped by each of the three offices.
Simultaneously adding staff capacity in all three offices to address increasing workload is the recommended approach
because there are multiple interdependencies between the offices. Since annual budget deliberations in the spring, case
filings continued to grow especially for criminal cases and criminal hearings which have exceeded pre-pandemic levels.
The additional staff proposed would reduce workload per employee to support service levels.
Sixth Justice Court Judge
It’s important to note that funding for a sixth judge is not included in this budget amendment because the appointment
process is estimated to take six months and would exceed the current fiscal year period. The Administration is requesting
the Council’s approval for a sixth judge, FTE to begin the hiring and appointment process. Funding for a sixth judge
would be included in the FY2027 annual budget and has a fully loaded estimated cost of $266,447. Earlier this year, in
August the Administration recommended and in October the Council adopted an ordinance amendment to City Code
Chapter 2.84 to allow future expansion of judgeships at the Justice Court including a sixth judge. The State Judicial
Council also authorized a sixth judge at the City’s Justice Court. Per City Code, the Mayor appoints a Justice Court judge,
and they are then confirmed by the City Council. Per Utah Code, justice court judges serve for a six-year term.
A total of $112,714 to the Justice Court
The Justice Court is proposed to receive $97,185 for three new FTEs, $9,000 for three computers, and $6,529 for
increased operating costs to mostly cover more interpreters and several smaller expenses. The total number of FTEs in
the Justice Court would increase to 48 FTEs (9% increase including the sixth judge). If all the positions and operational
costs are approved including a sixth judge, then the FY2027 annual budget would need $630,411.
- $50,891 ongoing to cover four months of a new Clerk of Court which is a new position at the Justice Court (see
the attached HR approved job description), and $3,000 one-time for a computer. The fully loaded annual cost of
the position is estimated at $152,672. This position would function like a department deputy director which the
Justice Court does not currently have.
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
9
- $46,294 ongoing to cover three months for two direct support Judicial Assistants Level 2 ($23,147 each),
and $6,000 one-time for three computers. The fully loaded annual cost of the positions is estimated at $185,177
($92,589 each). These judicial assistants would work directly with the sixth Justice Court judge providing
administrative support. The funding is proposed for three months to allow time for the new supervisor position
(Clerk of Court) to be hired one month earlier and to allow six-months training before the sixth judge is
appointed.
- $6,529 ongoing to cover three months of increased operational costs which would mostly be used for
interpreter services. The funds may also be used for several other expenses such as jury fees, equipment
maintenance, printing and postage among others. The FY2027 annual budget would need $26,115 to cover a full
year of the increased operational costs.
A total of $43,920 to the City Prosecutor’s Office
The City Prosecutor’s Office is proposed to receive $43,920 for four new FTEs. Funding for computers is included in the
operations fee paid by the City under the interlocal agreement with the County to manage the City Prosecutor’s Office.
The total number of FTEs in the office would increase to 36 FTEs (13% increase). If all the positions are approved, then
the FY2027 annual budget would need $527,041 to fully cover the annual cost.
- $33,699 ongoing to cover one month for three Associate Prosecutors ($11,233 each). The fully loaded
annual cost of the positions is estimated at $404,383 ($134,794 each). These positions would help reduce the per
attorney caseload.
- $10,221 ongoing to cover one month for a Paralegal. The fully loaded annual cost of the position is estimated at
$122,657. Attorneys have absorbed some paralegal work to fit within staffing limits so adding this position would
free up time for attorneys to work on other matters. This position would support discovery, screenings, and
diversion efforts.
A total of $33,115 to the Legal Defenders Association (LDA)
The LDA is proposed to receive $33,115 for three new positions which are not City employees; this additional funding
would be added to the annual Nondepartmental line-item for the LDA contract with the City. If all the positions are
approved, then the FY2027 annual budget would need $397,374 to fully cover the annual cost. This would increase the
total contract amount to $2,191,184 (22% increase).
- $25,467 ongoing to cover one month for two Attorneys ($12,734 each). The fully loaded annual cost of the
positions is estimated at $305,607 ($152,804 each). These positions would help reduce the per attorney
caseload. Legal defenders are not involved in every case; the LDA doesn’t get involved in cases that are resolved
before appointment and are not usually appointed on cases that involve only infraction level charges .
- $7,647 ongoing to cover one month for a Case Manager. The fully loaded annual cost of the position is
estimated at $91,767. The case manager would support the Familiar Faces Court and diversion efforts including
Project Rio.
-
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
10
A-18: Parking Way-finding Signage GF One-time $584,495.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson
For questions, please include Kyle Cook, Jorge Chamorro, James Aguilar, Orion Goff and Tammy
Hunsaker
Design options have been developed for parking wayfinding signage where it needs replacement or has been deemed
necessary. There were originally 54 way-finding signs downtown. Of the original 54 signs, only 17 are still in
service. Public Services/Streets do not have the equipment necessary to produce these large signs. As such,
Transportation/Engineering must find a third party to refurbish or produce and place the signs. A vinyl overlay can be
used on the 17 existing signs for a cost of $3,100 per sign amounting to a total of $52,700, although that isn’t considered
the most attractive option. The preferred option would be to refurbish the 17 signs at a cost of $4,900 per sign, for a total
of $83,300. This option would be a full refurbishment of the signs that would leave no evidence of the previous sign
graphics. Additionally, there may also be a need to refurbish some of the foundations of the 17 existing signs at a cost of
$1700 each. Once the preferred approach to refurbish the signs is determined by the Council, the balance of $584,495
can be used toward new signs at a cost of $12,400 each.
A-19: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
A-20: Funding for Fisher Mansion CIP One-time $500,000.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson
For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Jill Love and Jorge Chamorro
CIP funding is being requested for the Fisher Mansion to be used for projects that include replacing the exterior skylight,
repairing interior plaster cracks, refinishing soffits and fascia, and restoring deteriorated sandstone porch elements. It
would also include installing new wood floors over a new subfloor that is already under contract. A lternatively, the
budget could be focused solely on restoring as many doors and windows as possible. Full restoration of doors and
windows is estimated to exceed the available budget.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Legislative Affairs Operations Funding GF Ongoing $80,000.00
Department: Attorney Prepared By: Cindy Lou Trishman
For questions, please include Cindy Lou Trishman
Amending the budget to include the previously provided $80,000 to Legislative Affairs for operating costs. Costs include
state capital access, parking needs, travel, professional development, and event support.
D-2: Engineering Planning and Design
Housekeeping and Expansion GF Ongoing ($350,000.00)
GF Ongoing $350,000.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Mark Stephens, Julianne Sabula
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
11
For questions, please include Tammy Hunsaker, Mark Stephens and Julianne Sabula
In the annual budget, as part of the Ongoing Commitments a transfer of $350,000 was set up to be made from General
Fund to the CIP fund. It was determined for FY 2026 that it would be better housed in the Non -Departmental cost
center within the general fund, however the accounting for the transfer did not get corrected. This budget amendment
first needs to correct the "transfer to CIP fund" to an operational expense in the Non-Departmental cost center. This
portion of the BA request is simply housekeeping.
In addition to the housekeeping request, the Administration is requesting clarification on the types of projects that these
funds can be used for. In the current budget, these funds are called, “Planning and Design” and have been intended to
facilitate the planning and design of CIP projects prior to construction. For purposes of clarity, the Administration is
requesting that these funds be used not only to develop design documents and cost estimates but expanded to include
creating and updating master plans and other plans that are required by federal or state requirements.
D-3: Refuse Fund Carry Revenue Budget for
Lease Agreement Refuse One-time $0.00
Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Debbie Lyons
For questions, please include Debbie Lyons, Chris Bell and Ammon Jacobsmeyer
The Sustainability Department is requesting $8,918,482 in revenue for the Refuse Fund. As part of BA#1, the revenues to
offset expenses were not accounted for. Budget is required in order to realize financing revenue to enter lease agreements
for the new Waste & Recycling collection vehicles we expect to receive in FY 2026.
D-4: Community Events - Rescope GF One-Time $0.00
Department: Administration Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson
For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson
This item is to rescope $400,000 budgeted in NonDepartmental from Open Streets as follows:
$100,000 for the DTA Blocks program;
$200,000 for the watch party; and
$100,000 for America 250 events.
Unused funds will drop to fund balance. Money is being raising to support these events.
D-5: Streets GO Bonds Interest Reallocation for
FY 2025-26 CIP One-time ($1,735,515.83)
CIP One-time $1,735,515.83
Department: CAN Prepared By: Dawn Valente, Dustin Petersen
For questions, please include Dawn Valente, Dustin Petersen and Brent Beck
This budget amendment is requesting to allocate the interest from FY 2025 BA#2 for Streets GO bonds in the amount of
$1,735,515.83, in addition to any interest which will accrue while processing the invoice reallocations and bond draws
from July 1, 2025 through the remainder of the fiscal year June 30, 2026, to be used to fund additional rebuilds of city
streets as determined by the Engineering Division's Six Year Pavement Plan and deliberations of the Roadway Selection
Committee.
Engineering would like to request a straw poll for this housekeeping reallocation. Once approved, Engineering will need
to do journal entries to reallocate costs for Treasury to do the bond draws for the bonds that have expired. Then if there
is residual interest, another budget amendment will be needed for the remaining unallocated interest, along with
additional invoices to be reallocated so the totality of these bonds can be spent. Waiting for the bond draws will incur
additional earned interest which may be subject to arbitrage and the potential loss of funding for more roadway rebuilds.
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
12
One project that Engineering is looking to fund after the reallocation funding is complete is the 1700 East reconstruction
from 1700 South to 2100 South which was on the original reconstruction list but had to be pulled due to funding
shortage in the 2018 GO Bond series. Engineering and Transportation are working alongside Public Utilities to
coordinate their storm drainage project along 1700 East within and ahead of our road construction project limits, as well
as the Highland High Reconstruction that the school board will be doing over the next few years. This should be another
success story like 2100 South reconstruction where Engineering is able to install all the upgraded sewer and water lines
for Public Utilities as part of the roadway construction project to accommodate forthcoming private development
capacity needs without having to tear up new pavement within a few years. This collaboration with the City’s internal
Departments/Divisions and external entities is saving taxpayer dollars.
D-6: California Avenue Safety Improvements
Rescope CIP One-time $0.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Julianne Sabula
For questions, please include Julianne Sabula, Jon Larsen and Tammy Hunsaker
City Council funded a constituent requested project in the fall of 2024 to improve pedestrian safety in the Glendale
neighborhood. The project proposed to relocate curb and gutter to widen sidewalks and reduce the pedestrian crossing
distance on California Avenue, between Glendale Drive and Concord St, along with other safety improvements. During
the civil design work, it was discovered that relocating the curb and gutter would be more expensive than anticipated to
allow proper drainage of the relatively flat elevation. Transportation is requesting to rescope funding to allow other
improvements, as well as to expand the project area to include two nearby schools. Potential improvements could
include landscaping, lighting, traffic calming, pedestrian safety i mprovements and/or school crosswalk. Adequate funds
are available to address these items, but the Council needs to approve the budget rescope.
D-7: CPTED Streetlighting– GF to CIP Transfer CIP One-Time $300,000
Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson
As part of the annual budget, the $300,000 was not recognized in key chances with the adoption of the CIP Budget. This
action is to recognize this item.
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: Trail Maintenance for Salt Lake City Portion
of the Jordan River Trail Misc Grants One-time $57,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Amy Dorsey, Julianne Sabula
For questions, please include Amy Dorsey and Julianne Sabula
This budget amendment is to recognize the City's funding availability grant award in the amount of $57,600 for the
purpose of removing dead and dying trees and other woody vegetation to improve navigability, safety and beautification
of the Jordan River between 1700 South and 900 South.
Section F: Donations
Section G: Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda #
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
13
Section I: Council Added Items
This page has intentionally been left blank
Impact Fees - Summary
Data pulled 06/30/2025
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center Notes:
8484001 1,697,464$
8484002 685,449$ B
8484003 12,723,823$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 1,615,373$ D
16,722,109$
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
202407 (Jul2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202408 (Aug2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202409 (Sep2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202410 (Oct2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202411 (Nov2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202412 (Dec2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202501 (Jan2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202502 (Feb2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202503 (Mar2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202504 (Apr2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202505 (May2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202506 (Jun2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month
202507 (Jul2025)2026Q1
202508 (Aug2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202509 (Sep2025)2026Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202510 (Oct2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202511 (Nov2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202512 (Dec2025)2026Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202601 (Jan2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202602 (Feb2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202603 (Mar2026)2026Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202604 (Apr2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202605 (May2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202606 (Jun2026)2026Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202607 (Jul2026)2027Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202608 (Aug2026)2027Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202609 (Sep2026)2027Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202610 (Oct2026)2027Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202611 (Nov2026)2027Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202612 (Dec2026)2027Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202701 (Jan2027)2027Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202702 (Feb2027)2027Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202703 (Mar2027)2027Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202704 (Apr2027)2027Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202705 (May2027)2027Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202706 (Jun2027)2027Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202707 (Jul2027)2028Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202708 (Aug2027)2028Q1 16,511$ -$ -$ -$ 16,511$
202709 (Sep2027)2028Q1 43,763$ -$ -$ -$ 43,763$
202710 (Oct2027)2028Q2 52,548$ -$ 1,089,717$ -$ 1,142,265$
202711 (Nov2027)2028Q2 9,554$ -$ 923,400$ -$ 932,954$
202712 (Dec2027)2028Q2 65,118$ -$ 2,931,110$ -$ 2,996,228$
202801 (Jan2028)2028Q3 2,736$ -$ 91,357$ -$ 94,093$
202802 (Feb2028)2028Q3 15,159$ -$ 189,853$ -$ 205,012$
202803 (Mar2028)2028Q3 14,776$ -$ 466,744$ -$ 481,520$
202804 (Apr2028)2028Q4 34,298$ -$ 1,383,521$ -$ 1,417,819$
202805 (May2028)2028Q4 22,990$ -$ 881,420$ -$ 904,410$
202806 (Jun2028)2028Q4 20,966$ -$ 124,361$ -$ 145,327$
Total, Currently Expiring through Jun 2028 298,418$ -$ 8,081,483$ -$ 8,379,901$
FY
2
0
2
5
Calendar
Month
FY
2
0
2
6
FY
2
0
2
7
FY
2
0
2
8
Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Total
Impact Fees (Page 1)
Data pulled 06/30/2025 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Fire
Allocation
Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances
YTD
Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Budget
Amount
Values
Description Cost Center
FY24B4A6-3036-Fire Station 1 Fencing 130,275$ -$ -$ 130,275$
8419202 3,079$ -$ 3,021$ 58$
8423004 29,000$ -$ 1,540$ 27,460$
Grand Total
Parks
Allocation
Budget Allocation
Encumbrances
YTD
Expenditures Remaining
Description Cost Center
Allocation Budget Allocation Allocation YTD Sum of Parks Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
FY24CIP-3037-337 Park Development 550,000$ -$ -$ 550,000$
FY25B1D15-3037-Folsom Trail Landscapin 1,000,000$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$
FY25B1D15-3037-Glendale Park Phase 2 11,350,000$ 848,724$ 1,585,115$ 8,916,161$
FY25B1D15-3037-Liberty Park All Abilities 2,000,000$ -$ -$ 2,000,000$
FY25B1D15-3037-Warm Springs & North G 1,000,000$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$
8416005 1,733$ 855$ 1,733$ (855)$
8423406 287,848$ -$ 8,420$ 279,428$
8420136 149,953$ (124,185)$ 151,104$ 123,034$
FY25CIP-3037-Amplifying Our Jordan Rive 1,300,000$ -$ -$ 1,300,000$
8418005 262,043$ -$ 82,796$ 179,248$
FY24CIP-3037-Cottonwood Park Trailhead 648,000$ -$ -$ 648,000$
8420424 240,239$ -$ 143,325$ 96,914$
8418002 23,262$ -$ 19,638$ 3,624$
FY25CIP-3037-Equal Grounds Project (Cali 86,200$ -$ -$ 86,200$
FY FY25CIP-3037-Fairmont Park Basketball C 678,600$ -$ -$ 678,600$
FY24CIP-3037-Fire Station No. 7 Tennis an 416,150$ -$ -$ 416,150$
8421401 132,208$ -$ 123,813$ 8,396$
8420430 125,740$ -$ 125,495$ 245$
8423408 499,457$ -$ 5,511$ 493,946$
8423450 4,350,000$ 542,000$ 3,788,200$ 19,800$
8422406 2,246,982$ (8,929)$ 1,850,202$ 405,709$ C
8422408 513,788$ -$ 513,788$ 0$
8422410 315,770$ -$ 156,146$ 159,624$
8420406 54,808$ -$ -$ 54,808$
8423005 29,000$ -$ 1,540$ 27,460$
8419103 6,398$ -$ -$ 6,398$
FY24CIP-3037-Jefferson Park Improvemen 530,000$ -$ -$ 530,000$
8420134 404,139$ -$ 15,108$ 389,031$
8422414 475,079$ -$ 14,844$ 460,235$
8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$
8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$
8423409 299,269$ -$ 220,000$ 79,269$
8417011 60,928$ -$ 60,928$ -$
8423451 996,905$ 84,133$ 432,000$ 480,772$
8423407 864,449$ -$ -$ 864,449$
8423452 450,000$ -$ 33,140$ 416,860$
8423453 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$
Parks Bilingual Signage Installation FY24CIP-3037-Parks Bilingual Signage Ins 331,200$ -$ -$ 331,200$
Park's Consultant's Contract 8419204 2,638$ -$ 2,596$ 42$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,052,938$ 574,411$ 1,128,751$ 1,349,776$
Playground Shade FY25CIP-3037-Playground Shade 500,000$ -$ -$ 500,000$
Pocket Park Community Space - Jake Garn FY25CIP-3037-Pocket Park Community Sp 330,000$ -$ -$ 330,000$
Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball FY24CIP-3037-Poplar Grove Park Full Cour 253,500$ -$ 8,182$ 245,319$
RAC Playground Phase II 8423405 521,564$ -$ -$ 521,564$
RAC Playground with Shade Sail 8422415 178,298$ -$ 63,456$ 114,842$
Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$
Rich Park Comm Garden 8420138 12,431$ -$ -$ 12,431$
Riverside Park Pathway Loop FY25CIP-3037-Riverside Park Pathway Loo 530,000$ -$ -$ 530,000$
Rose Park Neighborhood Center 8423403 157,280$ -$ 157,280$ -$
Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,056$ -$ -$ 1,056$
SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 319,139$ -$ 14,175$ 304,964$
SLC Foothills Trailhead Develo 8422412 1,241,318$ -$ 112,726$ 1,128,592$
Street Futsal Courts 1:1 Match FY25CIP-3037-Street Futsal Courts 1:1 Ma 350,000$ -$ -$ 350,000$
Three Creeks West Bank New Par 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 21,830$ -$ -$ 21,830$
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 120,893$ -$ -$ 120,893$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 431,860$ -$ 11,481$ 420,378$
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 1,705$ 1,705$ -$ -$
Grand Total
$685,449
8484002
12,723,823$
8484003
Impact Fees (Page 2)CONTINUED from PG1
Data pulled 06/30/2025 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police Allocation Allocation YTD Remaining
Values
Description Cost Center
8423003 29,000$ -$ 1,540$ 27,460$
FY24B5A6-3035-Police Impact Fee Refunds 47,592$ -$ 801$ 46,791$
Grand Total 76,592$ -$ 2,341$ 74,251$
Streets Allocation Allocation
Encumbrances
YTD
Expenditures Remaining
Description Cost Center
8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$
8423602 252,000$ -$ 252,000$ -$
8422602 37,422$ -$ 37,422$ -$
8423606 40,000$ 40,000$ -$ -$
8422611 90,000$ 22,576$ 2,424$ 65,000$
8418016 22,744$ -$ -$ 22,744$
8412001 11,703$ 5,546$ 6,157$ -$ D
FY25CIP-3037-5th West Commons Conversation Center(s)50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$
FY24B3A6-3038-600/700 North Reconstruction 3,204,371$ 3,204,371$ -$ -$
FY24CIP-3038-75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement 40,000$ -$ -$ 40,000$
8422604 28,000$ -$ 28,000$ -$
8418003 181,303$ -$ 136,936$ 44,367$
8420120 18,699$ -$ -$ 18,699$
8422608 25,398$ -$ 25,398$ -$
FY24B5D9-3038-FY24 Street IF Refunds 75,000$ -$ -$ 75,000$
8406001 15,169$ 12,674$ 836$ 1,659$
FY25B5A12-3038-2025 IFFP Amendment - Streets 20,000$ -$ -$ 20,000$
8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$
FY24CIP-3038-Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, and Citywide 90,000$ -$ 1,418$ 88,582$
8421501 340,236$ -$ 53,109$ 287,127$
8423608 110,000$ -$ 10,000$ 100,000$
FY24CIP-3038-Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments-FY24 110,000$ -$ 513$ 109,488$
8420110 46,883$ -$ (1,117)$ 48,000$
8421500 241,135$ -$ 124,786$ 116,349$
8422620 6,316$ -$ -$ 6,316$
FY24B5A7-3038-Update of the Streets IFFP - Unappropriated Transportation Impact Fees 30,183$ -$ -$ 30,183$
FY24B5A7-3038-Update of the Streets IFFP (Rescope 8419203)29,817$ -$ -$ 29,817$
8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$
Grand Total
Values
Sum of Budget-Amended Sum of Encum- brances Sum of YTD Expenditures
E = A + B + C + D
$16,722,109
UnAllocated
Budget
Amount
1,697,464$
8484001
1,615,373$
8484005
This page has intentionally been left blank
ATTACHMENT #1
Job Title: Clerk of Court
Job Code:
FLSA: Exempt
Pay Rate Type: Exempt
Comp Grade:
Management Level: Manager
Classification:
EEO Code: OFFICIALS_AND_ADMINISTRATORS - (EEO-4 Job Classification)
Workers Comp Code:
Job Family:
Job Profile Summary
Under the general direction of the Court Administrator, the Clerk of Court provides high-level
administrative and operational leadership for the Salt Lake City Justice Court. This position
oversees daily court functions, supervises staff, ensures procedural compliance, and assists with
implementing strategic and policy initiatives established by the Court Administrator and the
Bench.
The Clerk of Court acts as a key member of court leadership, supporting judges, staff, and
partners in advancing court operations, staff development, and access to justice initiatives.
Job Description TYPICAL DUTIES:
• Provides direct administrative support to the Bench and Court Administrator in achieving court
wide goals and implementing policies and procedures.
• Oversees daily operations across all court departments, ensuring compliance with state law,
Judicial Council rules, and administrative standards.
• Coordinates with judges, judicial assistants, clerks, bailiffs, and other staff to maintain consistent
procedures and efficient case flow management.
• Disseminates up to date information to staff regarding policy and procedure changes.
• Supervises assigned personnel, including hiring, onboarding, training, establishing performance
expectations, providing feedback, and addressing performance issues as needed.
• Conducts performance management and training needs assessments; monitors and tracks
training completion and effectiveness.
• Schedules and monitors workloads to assure effective staff utilization and maximum output.
• Represents the interests of the court with local community leaders including representatives of
various state and local government agencies.
• Serves as the primary administrator for internal learning and development systems, including
the city’s performance management and learning management systems
• Assists in developing and implementing administrative policies, operational procedures, and
long-range strategic plans in collaboration with the Court Administrator.
• Prepares reports, operational analyses, and data summaries for use in management decision-
making and reporting.
• Participates in planning and policy discussions with judicial leadership and represents the court
in committees, task forces, and external collaborations.
• Oversees or coordinates internal communication, employee recognition, service awards, and
other engagement or staff development programs.
• Ensures effective coordination of courtroom coverage and clerical support for all proceedings.
• Maintains familiarity with and ensures compliance with the Utah Code of Judicial Administration,
local ordinances, and applicable state and federal regulations.
• Monitors and tracks relevant legislative changes and updates, providing guidance to judges and
staff on impacts to court operations and procedures.
• Performs other duties as assigned.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
• Graduation from an accredited college or university with a bachelor’s degree in public
administration, business administration, or a closely related field. Six (6) years of directly related
experience, including supervisory and management experience, or any equivalent combination
of education and experience.
• Knowledge of court operations, personnel management, policy implementation, and
administrative coordination.
• Skill in leadership, supervision, and employee development.
• Ability to plan, organize, and prioritize multiple tasks under tight deadlines.
• Excellent written and verbal communication skills.
• Strong analytical and critical thinking abilities for evaluating workflow and implementing process
improvements.
• Ability to establish and maintain cooperative working relationships with judges, staff, city
departments, allied agencies, and the public.
• Proficiency with technology, including Google Workspace, Microsoft Office Suite, and virtual
collaboration platforms (e.g., Webex).
• Commitment to professionalism, confidentiality, and ethical standards in all court operations.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
• Work performed in an office and courtroom setting under normal conditions of light,
temperature, and sound.
• Exposure to stress due to multiple projects, deadlines, and interactions with individuals in
emotionally charged situations.
• Requires occasional travel to meetings, training, or outreach sites.
The above statements are intended to describe the general nature and level of work being
performed by persons assigned to this job. They are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all
duties, responsibilities and skills required of personnel so classified.
All requirements are subject to possible modification to reasonably accommodate individuals
with disabilities.
• Additional Job Description
POSITION TYPE
Full-Time / Part-Time / Seasonal
POSITION SALARY RANGE
$ - $
DEPARTMENT
XX
This page has intentionally been left blank
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
12/23/2025
Date Sent to Council:
12/24/2025
From:
Department *
Finance
Employee Name:
Hillier, Randy
E-mail
Randy.Hillier@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
12/23/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
12/24/2025
Subject:
FY25 Budget Amendment #4
Additional Staff Contact:
Greg Cleary, Mary Beth Thompson
Presenters/Staff Table
Greg Cleary: greg.cleary@slc.gov and Mary Beth Thompson: marybeth.thompson@slc.gov
Document Type
Ordinance
Recommendation:
The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2025 adopted budget
Background/Discussion
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $8,273,526 in expenses in the general fund. The amendment proposes changes in seven (7) funds, with a total revenue increase of $16,629,942 and a corresponding expenditure increase of $16,834,986. The proposal includes the addition of nine (9) general fund-funded positions.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
Public Hearing
Is there a City or State statutory requirement to hold a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
The City Council reserves the option to hold and notice for a public hearing pursuant to their practices for public engagement.
Does the City have a general practice to hold a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
Public Hearing
This page has intentionally been left blank
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2026
(Fourth amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City,
including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year
2025-2026)
An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2025, which adopted the
Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2025, and Ending
June 30, 2026.
In June of 2025, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,
Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2025, and ending June 30, 2026, pursuant to the requirements of Utah Code section 10-6-118.
The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with
the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically
stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and
inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized
by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2025.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes
specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same
hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the
amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 2025, and ending June 30, 2026, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128 of
the Utah Code.
SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is
authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the
office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ____ day of _____, 2026.
Chris Wharton, Council Chair
ATTEST:
Keith Reynolds, City Recorder
Transmitted to the Mayor on
Mayor’s Action: Approved Vetoed
Mayor Erin Mendenhall
ATTEST:
Keith Reynolds, City
Recorder
(SEAL)
Bill No. ____ of 2026.
Published
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
Jaysen Oldroyd Jaysen Oldroyd
This page has intentionally been left blank
ATTACHMENT #1
Job Title: Clerk of Court
Job Code:
FLSA: Exempt
Pay Rate Type: Exempt
Comp Grade:
Management Level: Manager
Classification:
EEO Code: OFFICIALS_AND_ADMINISTRATORS - (EEO-4 Job Classification)
Workers Comp Code:
Job Family:
Job Profile Summary
Under the general direction of the Court Administrator, the Clerk of Court provides high-level
administrative and operational leadership for the Salt Lake City Justice Court. This position
oversees daily court functions, supervises staff, ensures procedural compliance, and assists with
implementing strategic and policy initiatives established by the Court Administrator and the
Bench.
The Clerk of Court acts as a key member of court leadership, supporting judges, staff, and
partners in advancing court operations, staff development, and access to justice initiatives.
Job Description TYPICAL DUTIES:
• Provides direct administrative support to the Bench and Court Administrator in achieving court
wide goals and implementing policies and procedures.
• Oversees daily operations across all court departments, ensuring compliance with state law,
Judicial Council rules, and administrative standards.
• Coordinates with judges, judicial assistants, clerks, bailiffs, and other staff to maintain consistent
procedures and efficient case flow management.
• Disseminates up to date information to staff regarding policy and procedure changes.
• Supervises assigned personnel, including hiring, onboarding, training, establishing performance
expectations, providing feedback, and addressing performance issues as needed.
• Conducts performance management and training needs assessments; monitors and tracks
training completion and effectiveness.
• Schedules and monitors workloads to assure effective staff utilization and maximum output.
• Represents the interests of the court with local community leaders including representatives of
various state and local government agencies.
• Serves as the primary administrator for internal learning and development systems, including
the city’s performance management and learning management systems
• Assists in developing and implementing administrative policies, operational procedures, and
long-range strategic plans in collaboration with the Court Administrator.
• Prepares reports, operational analyses, and data summaries for use in management decision-
making and reporting.
• Participates in planning and policy discussions with judicial leadership and represents the court
in committees, task forces, and external collaborations.
• Oversees or coordinates internal communication, employee recognition, service awards, and
other engagement or staff development programs.
• Ensures effective coordination of courtroom coverage and clerical support for all proceedings.
• Maintains familiarity with and ensures compliance with the Utah Code of Judicial Administration,
local ordinances, and applicable state and federal regulations.
• Monitors and tracks relevant legislative changes and updates, providing guidance to judges and
staff on impacts to court operations and procedures.
• Performs other duties as assigned.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
• Graduation from an accredited college or university with a bachelor’s degree in public
administration, business administration, or a closely related field. Six (6) years of directly related
experience, including supervisory and management experience, or any equivalent combination
of education and experience.
• Knowledge of court operations, personnel management, policy implementation, and
administrative coordination.
• Skill in leadership, supervision, and employee development.
• Ability to plan, organize, and prioritize multiple tasks under tight deadlines.
• Excellent written and verbal communication skills.
• Strong analytical and critical thinking abilities for evaluating workflow and implementing process
improvements.
• Ability to establish and maintain cooperative working relationships with judges, staff, city
departments, allied agencies, and the public.
• Proficiency with technology, including Google Workspace, Microsoft Office Suite, and virtual
collaboration platforms (e.g., Webex).
• Commitment to professionalism, confidentiality, and ethical standards in all court operations.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
• Work performed in an office and courtroom setting under normal conditions of light,
temperature, and sound.
• Exposure to stress due to multiple projects, deadlines, and interactions with individuals in
emotionally charged situations.
• Requires occasional travel to meetings, training, or outreach sites.
The above statements are intended to describe the general nature and level of work being
performed by persons assigned to this job. They are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all
duties, responsibilities and skills required of personnel so classified.
All requirements are subject to possible modification to reasonably accommodate individuals
with disabilities.
• Additional Job Description
POSITION TYPE
Full-Time / Part-Time / Seasonal
POSITION SALARY RANGE
$ - $
DEPARTMENT
XX
This page has intentionally been left blank
Impact Fees (Page 1)
Data pulled 04/30/2025 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Fire
Allocation
Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances
YTD
Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Budget
Amount
Values
Description Cost Center
8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$
8419202 3,079$ 3,021$ 3,021$ (2,963)$
8423004 9,000$ -$ 1,540$ 7,460$
FY24B4A6-3036-Fire Station 1 Fencing 130,275$ -$ -$ 130,275$ B
Grand Total
Parks
Allocation
Budget Allocation
Encumbrances
YTD
Expenditures Remaining
Description Cost Center
FY24CIP-3037-337 Park Development 550,000$ -$ -$ 550,000$
FY25CIP-3037-5th West Commons Conversation Center(s)50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$
8416005 1,733$ 855$ 1,733$ (855)$
8423406 287,848$ 130$ 8,420$ 279,298$
8420136 149,953$ -$ 162,067$ (12,114)$
FY25CIP-3037-Amplifying Our Jordan River Revitalization 1,300,000$ -$ -$ 1,300,000$
8418005 262,043$ 262,043$ -$ -$
FY24CIP-3037-Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parklet 648,000$ -$ -$ 648,000$
8420424 240,239$ -$ 143,325$ 96,914$
8418002 23,262$ -$ 19,638$ 3,624$
FY25CIP-3037-Equal Grounds Project (Calisthenics-Fitness Area)86,200$ -$ -$ 86,200$
FY25CIP-3037-Fairmont Park Basketball Court 678,600$ -$ -$ 678,600$
FY24CIP-3037-Fire Station No. 7 Tennis and Pickleball Court Restoration and Amenities 416,150$ -$ -$ 416,150$
8421401 132,208$ 1,400$ 123,813$ 6,996$
FY FY25B1D15-3037-Folsom Trail Landscaping, Irrigation & Completing the Trail 1,000,000$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$
8420430 125,740$ 66,901$ 58,839$ -$
8423408 499,457$ -$ 5,511$ 493,946$
FY25B1D15-3037-Glendale Park Phase 2 Design & Construction 11,350,000$ 5,609,300$ 273,777$ 5,466,922$
8423450 4,350,000$ 1,561,800$ 2,788,200$ -$
8422406 2,246,982$ 1,228,956$ 1,018,027$ -$
8422408 513,788$ 24,243$ 489,546$ 0$ C
8422410 315,770$ -$ 156,146$ 159,624$
8420406 54,808$ -$ -$ 54,808$
8423005 9,000$ -$ 1,540$ 7,460$
8419103 6,398$ -$ -$ 6,398$
FY24CIP-3037-Jefferson Park Improvements 530,000$ -$ -$ 530,000$
8420134 404,139$ 1,649$ 14,304$ 388,186$
8422414 475,079$ 6,361$ 13,693$ 455,024$
8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$
8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$
FY25B1D15-3037-Liberty Park All Abilities Play Park & Playground 2,000,000$ -$ -$ 2,000,000$
8423409 299,269$ -$ 220,000$ 79,269$
8417011 60,928$ -$ 60,821$ 107$
8423451 996,905$ -$ 429,207$ 567,698$
8423407 864,449$ -$ -$ 864,449$
8423452 450,000$ -$ 33,140$ 416,860$
8423453 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$
Parks Bilingual Signage Installation FY24CIP-3037-Parks Bilingual Signage Installation 331,200$ -$ -$ 331,200$
Park's Consultant's Contract 8419204 2,638$ 2,596$ 2,596$ (2,554)$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,052,938$ 1,050,562$ 830,103$ 1,172,273$
Playground Shade FY25CIP-3037-Playground Shade 500,000$ -$ -$ 500,000$
Pocket Park Community Space - Jake Garn WFY25CIP-3037-Pocket Park Community Space - Jake Garn Way 330,000$ -$ -$ 330,000$
Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Exp FY24CIP-3037-Poplar Grove Park Full Court Basketball Expansion 253,500$ -$ 8,182$ 245,319$
RAC Playground Phase II 8423405 521,564$ -$ -$ 521,564$
RAC Playground with Shade Sails 8422415 178,298$ 11,542$ 63,456$ 103,300$
Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$
Rich Park Comm Garden 8420138 12,431$ -$ -$ 12,431$
Riverside Park Pathway Loop FY25CIP-3037-Riverside Park Pathway Loop 530,000$ -$ -$ 530,000$
Rose Park Neighborhood Center 8423403 157,280$ -$ 157,280$ -$
Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,056$ -$ -$ 1,056$
SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 319,139$ -$ 14,175$ 304,964$
SLC Foothills Trailhead Development 8422412 1,241,318$ 127,040$ 103,060$ 1,011,218$
Street Futsal Courts 1:1 Match FY25CIP-3037-Street Futsal Courts 1:1 Match 350,000$ -$ -$ 350,000$
Three Creeks West Bank New Park 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 21,830$ -$ -$ 21,830$
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 120,893$ -$ -$ 120,893$
Warm Springs & North Gateway Park FY25B1D15-3037-Warm Springs & North Gateway Park 1,000,000$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 431,860$ 22,382$ 11,481$ 397,996$
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 1,705$ 1,705$ -$ -$
Grand Total
9,160,648$
8484003
$777,182
8484002
Impact Fees (Page 2)CONTINUED from PG1
Data pulled 04/30/2025 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police Allocation Allocation
Encumbrances
YTD
Expenditures
Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
Description Cost Center
8423003 9,000$ -$ 1,540$ 7,460$
FY24B5A6-3035-Police Impact Fee Refunds 47,592$ -$ -$ 47,592$
Grand Total
Streets Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances
YTD
Expenditures
Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$
8423602 252,000$ -$ 252,000$ -$
8422602 37,422$ -$ 37,422$ -$
FY24B3A5-3038-2100 South Reconstruction (131,247)$ -$ (131,247)$ -$
8423606 40,000$ 40,000$ -$ -$
8422611 90,000$ 25,000$ -$ 65,000$
8418016 22,744$ -$ -$ 22,744$
8412001 11,703$ 5,685$ 6,018$ -$ D
FY24B3A6-3038-600/700 North Reconstruction 3,204,371$ -$ -$ 3,204,371$
8423305 (166)$ -$ (166)$ -$
FY24CIP-3038-75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement 40,000$ -$ -$ 40,000$
8422604 28,000$ -$ 28,000$ -$
8418003 181,303$ -$ 136,936$ 44,367$
8420120 18,699$ -$ -$ 18,699$
8422608 25,398$ -$ 25,398$ -$
8423625 (224,557)$ -$ (224,557)$ -$
8406001 15,169$ 12,925$ 585$ 1,659$
8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$
FY24CIP-3038-Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, an 90,000$ -$ 1,418$ 88,582$
8420125 (1,359,910)$ -$ (1,359,910)$ -$
8421501 340,236$ -$ 53,109$ 287,127$
8419008 (108,000)$ -$ (108,000)$ -$
8420105 (200,000)$ -$ (200,000)$ -$
8423608 110,000$ -$ 5,205$ 100,000$
FY24CIP-3038-Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / 110,000$ -$ 513$ 109,488$
8420110 46,883$ 11,820$ 5,480$ 29,583$
8422620 6,316$ -$ -$ 6,316$
8421500 241,135$ 2,558$ 118,188$ 120,388$
FY24B5A7-3038-Update of the Streets IFFP - Unappropriate 30,183$ -$ -$ 30,183$
FY24B5A7-3038-Update of the Streets IFFP (Rescope 8419 29,817$ 17,442$ -$ 12,374$
8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$
Grand Total
Total
E = A + B + C + D
15,372,660$
3,799,855$
8484005
UnAllocated
Budget
Amount
1,634,974$
8484001
This page has intentionally been left blank
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET
PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
___________________________________ Date Received: _______________
Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: __________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: December 23, 2025
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: FY26 Budget Amendment #4
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT: Mary Beth Thompson, Greg Cleary
DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing,
the City Council adopt the following amendments to the Fiscal Year 2026 adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND $0.00 $8,245,928.00
FLEET FUND 1,581,719.00 1,581,719.00
CIP FUND 5,798,741.00 6,298,741.00
REFUSE FUND 8,918,482.00 0.00
GOLF FUND 250,000.00 250,000.00
IMS FUND 21,000.00 21,000.00
MISC GRANTS FUND 57,000.00 57,000.00
TOTAL $16,626,942.00 $16,454,388.00
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY 2026 Budget Adjustments
The chart below presents General Fund Projected Revenues for FY 2026. Based on revenue data across the first
part of the fiscal year, it is projected that revenues will be realized at approximately $368,733 beyond the FY
2026 Adopted Budget.
Revenue FY26 Annual Budget
FY26 Amended
Budget Projection
Amended Variance
Favorable/(Unfavorable)
Property Taxes 148,580,334 148,580,334 148,580,334 -
Sales, Use & Excise Taxes 126,026,000 126,026,000 126,000,000 (26,000)
Franchise Taxes 17,220,000 17,220,000 17,339,305 119,305
Total Taxes 291,826,334 291,826,334 291,919,639 93,305
Charges For Services 6,821,820 6,821,820 5,056,754 (1,765,066)
Fines & Forfeitures 3,085,827 3,085,827 3,074,937 (10,890)
Interest Income 9,000,000 9,000,000 9,000,000 -
Interfund Service Charges 34,569,169 34,569,169 34,574,395 5,226
Intergovernmental Revenue 6,205,000 6,205,000 6,073,983 (131,017)
Licenses 21,847,694 21,847,694 22,024,495 176,801
Miscellaneous Revenue 3,838,663 3,838,663 3,808,672 (29,991)
Parking Meter Revenue 3,273,255 3,273,255 3,956,050 682,795
Parking Tickets 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 -
Permits 18,981,859 18,981,859 20,235,322 1,253,463
Property Sale Proceeds - - 24,741 24,741
Gain on Property Dispositions - - 272 272
Rental & Other Income 1,201,460 1,201,460 1,270,554 69,094
Operating Transfers In 24,780,192 24,780,192 24,780,192 -
Total W/O Special Tax 135,804,939 135,804,939 136,080,367 275,428
Sales Tax Addition 1/2%58,000,000 58,000,000 58,000,000 -
Total General Fund 485,631,273 485,631,273 486,000,006 368,733
The table below presents updated Fund Balance numbers and percentages, based on the proposed changes
included in Budget Amendment #4.
With the complete adoption of Budget Amendment #4, the available fund balance will remain at 11.10 percent
of the FY 2026 Adopted Budget. For context, at budget adoption fund balance was at 12.93 percent.
FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL
Beginning Fund Balance 27,841,978 146,448,554 174,290,532 14,931,953 78,854,192 93,786,145
Prior Year Encumbrances (3,547,119) (18,657,815) (22,204,934) - - -
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 24,294,859$ 127,790,739$ 152,085,598$ 14,931,953$ 78,854,192$ 93,786,145$
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 39.57%30.50%31.66%25.42%17.38%18.30%
Year End ACFR Adjustments
Revenue Changes
Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (3,188,435) (3,188,435)
Fund Balance w/ ACFR Changes 24,294,859 124,602,304 148,897,163 14,931,953 78,854,192 93,786,145
Final Fund Balance Percent 39.57%29.74%30.99%25.42%17.38%18.30%
Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (4,162,906) (36,664,442) (40,827,348) - (27,392,780) (27,392,780)
Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance
BA#1 Revenue Adjustment 469,408 469,408
BA#1 Expense Adjustment (2,468,933) (2,468,933) (353,000)
BA#2 Revenue Adjustment 102,000 102,000
BA#2 Expense Adjustment (3,407,524) (3,407,524) (913,000) (913,000)
BA#3 Revenue Adjustment 3,904,861 3,904,861
BA#3 Expense Adjustment (3,959,861) (3,959,861)
BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - -
BA#4 Expense Adjustment - - (8,245,928) (8,245,928)
BA#5 Revenue Adjustment 1,013,067 1,013,067
BA#5 Expense Adjustment (5,200,000) (4,736,688) (9,936,688)
BA#6 Revenue Adjustment -
BA#6 Expense Adjustment
Change in Revenue
Change in Expense
Fund Balance Budgeted Increase
Adjusted Fund Balance 14,931,953 78,854,192 93,786,145 14,931,953 42,302,484 56,881,437
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 24.32%18.82%19.52%25.42%9.32%11.10%
Projected Revenue 61,397,384 419,006,975 480,404,359 58,749,999 453,721,525 512,471,524
Salt Lake City
General Fund
TOTAL
Fund Balance Projections
FY2026 BudgetFY2025 Budget
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $8,245,928 in expenses in the
general fund. The amendment proposes changes in seven (7) funds, with a total revenue increase
of $16,626,942 and a corresponding expenditure increase of $16,454,388. The proposal includes
the addition of eight (8) general fund-funded positions.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration
requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The budget amendment is separated in eight different categories:
A. New Budget Items
B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C. Grants for New Staff Resources
D. Housekeeping Items
E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F. Donations
G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I. Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
This page has intentionally been left blank
Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure
Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 Vehicle Replacement for Urban Services Division GF 0.00 (37,000.00)One-time -
1 Vehicle Replacement for Urban Services Division GF 0.00 37,000.00 One-time -
1 Vehicle Replacement for Urban Services Division Fleet 37,000.00 37,000.00 One-time -
2 Trailer for Facilities Division GF 0.00 (30,000.00)One-time -
2 Trailer for Facilities Division GF 0.00 30,000.00 One-time -
2 Trailer for Facilities Division Fleet 30,000.00 30,000.00 One-time -
3 Wildland Firefighting Expansion Funding GF 0.00 88,000.00 One-time/Ongoing -
4 Public Lands One-time Personal Services Budget Rescope for
Equipment Purchases GF 0.00 (163,900.00)One-time -
4 Public Lands One-time Personal Services Budget Rescope for
Equipment Purchases GF 0.00 163,900.00 One-time -
4 Public Lands One-time Personal Services Budget Rescope for
Equipment Purchases Fleet 163,900.00 163,900.00 One-time -
5 Park Land Acquisition CIP 0.00 (405,000.00)One-time -
5 Park Land Acquisition CIP 0.00 405,000.00
6 Pedestrian Bridge Over the Surplus Canal at Glendale Golf
Course GF 0.00 250,000.00 One-time -
6 Pedestrian Bridge Over the Surplus Canal at Glendale Golf
Course Golf 250,000.00 250,000.00 One-time -
7 Moved to Housekeeping
8 Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
9 Public Services Facilities Division: Old Library Immediate
Facility Needs GF 0.00 195,000.00 One-time -
10 Backhoe for Public Services Streets Division & Tractor for
Public Lands Parks Division GF 0.00 292,819.00 One-time -
10 Backhoe for Public Services Streets Division & Tractor for
Public Lands Parks Division Fleet 292,819.00 292,819.00 One-time -
11 Old Library, Plaza 349 and Justice Courts Capital
Improvements CIP 5,498,741.00 5,498,741.00 One-time -
11 Old Library, Plaza 349 and Justice Courts Capital
Improvements GF 0.00 889,800.00 One-time -
12 Trailer for Public Services Streets Division GF 0.00 (58,000.00)One-time -
12 Trailer for Public Services Streets Division GF 0.00 58,000.00 One-time -
12 Trailer for Public Services Streets Division Fleet 58,000.00 58,000.00 One-time -
13 Funding for Gap in Homeless Resource Center Grant
Funding for Salaries GF 0.00 292,833.00 Ongoing -
14 Police Overtime Funding in FY 2026 GF 0.00 3,810,941.00 One-time -
15 Police Retirements Cost GF 0.00 977,286.00 One-time -
16 Police Mobile Command Center GF 0.00 1,000,000.00 One-time -
16 Police Mobile Command Center Fleet 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 One-time -
17 Justice Court, City Prosecutor's Office and Legal Defenders
Association (LDA) Staffing Increases GF 0.00 201,749.00 Ongoing 8.00
17 Justice Court, City Prosecutor's Office and Legal Defenders
Association (LDA) Staffing Increases IMS 21,000.00 21,000.00 One-time -
18 Parking Wayfinding Signage GF 0.00 167,500.00 One-time -
19 Exhibit Space at the City County Building CIP 0.00 500,000.00 One-time -
1 Legislative Affairs Operations Funding GF 0.00 80,000.00 Ongoing -
2 Engineering Planning and Design Housekeeping and
Rescope GF 0.00 (350,000.00)One-time -
2 Engineering Planning and Design Housekeeping and
Rescope GF 0.00 350,000.00 One-time -
3 Refuse Fund Revenue Budget for Lease Agreement Refuse 8,918,482.00 0.00 One-time -
4 Community Events - Rescope GF 0.00 0.00 One-time -
5 Streets GO Bonds Interest Reallocation for FY 2025-26 CIP 0.00 (1,735,515.83)One-time -
5 Streets GO Bonds Interest Reallocation for FY 2025-27 CIP 0.00 1,735,515.83 One-time -
Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Section A: New Items
Section D: Housekeeping
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
1
Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
6 California Avenue Safety Improvements Rescope CIP 0.00 0.00 One-time -
7 CPTED Streetlight – GF to CIP Transfer CIP 300,000.00 300,000.00 One-time
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
1 Trail Maintenance for Salt Lake City Portion of the Jordan
River Trail Misc Grants 57,000.00 57,000.00 One-time -
Consent Agenda
Total of Budget Amendment
Items 16,626,942.00 16,454,388.00 0.00 0.00 8.00
Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure
Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Total by Fund, Budget Amendment #4:
General Fund GF 0.00 8,245,928.00 0.00 0.00 8.00
Fleet Fund Fleet 1,581,719.00 1,581,719.00 0.00 0.00
CIP Fund CIP 5,798,741.00 6,298,741.00 0.00 0.00
Refuse Collection Fund Refuse 8,918,482.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Golf Fund Golf 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 0.00
IMS Fund IMS 21,000.00 21,000.00 0.00 0.00
Misc Grants Fund Misc Grants 57,000.00 57,000.00 0.00 0.00 -
Total of Budget Amendment Items 16,626,942.00 16,454,388.00 0.00 0.00 8.00
Administration Proposed Council Approved
Section I: Council Added Items
Section F: Donations
Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards
2
Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2025-26 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
FY 2025-26 Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue
General Fund (FC 100)453,721,525 0.00 - - 453,721,525.09
Debt Service Fund (FC 101)30,514,822 30,514,822.00
Other Improvement Fund (FC 150)3,000 3,000.00
Capital Improvement Fund (FC 300)41,675,084 12,206,670.04 5,798,741.00 59,680,495.04
Water Utility Fund (FC 400)192,010,432 51,079,400.00 243,089,832.00
Sewer Utility Fund (FC 410)357,160,859 357,160,859.00
Stormwater Utility Fund (FC 420)25,327,969 2,000,000.00 27,327,969.00
Street Lighting Utility Fund (FC 430)5,874,881 5,874,881.00
Department of Airports Fund (FC 540)606,598,500 - 606,598,500.00
Fleet Management Fund (FC 610)23,925,700 - 1,581,719.00 25,507,419.00
Risk Management Fund (FC 620)69,846,524 69,846,524.37
Governmental Immunity Fund (FC 630)4,529,865 4,529,865.00
Information Mgt Serv Fund (FC 650)43,052,934 50,000.00 21,000.00 43,123,934.00
Local Building Authority Fund (FC 660)1,172,525 1,172,525.00
Refuse Collection Fund (FC670)25,469,123 8,918,482.00 34,387,605.00
Golf Fund (FC 680)14,156,634 250,000.00 14,406,634.00
Housing and Loan Fund (FC 690)14,082,500 14,082,500.00
CDBG Fund (FC 710)4,885,779 4,885,779.00
Miscellaneous Grants Fund (FC 720)12,714,477 3,490,212.72 4,139,704.89 57,000.00 20,401,394.61
Demolition Weed and Forfeiture (FC 730)4,365,000 4,365,000.00
Emergency 911 Dispatch (FC 750)4,295,000 4,295,000.00
Downtown Alliance Fund (FC 760)1,700,000 2,500,000.00 4,200,000.00
Donations Fund (FC 770)500,000 500,000.00
Funding Our Future Fund (FC 780)58,749,999 58,749,999.00
Transportation Fund (FC 785)14,332,500 14,332,500.00
DEA Taskforce (FC 901)1,159,208 1,159,207.61
Community Reinvestment Agency Fund (FC 920)86,036,232 86,036,232.00
Sports Arena Fund (FC 740)79,512,660 79,512,660.00
Emergency Loan Program Fund - 273,000.00
Total of Budget Amendment Items 2,177,373,732 273,000.00 71,326,282.76 4,139,704.89 16,626,942.00 - 2,269,466,661.72
3
Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Total Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense
General Fund (FC 100)464,359,952 353,000.00 913,000.00 8,245,928.00 473,871,880.26
Debt Service Fund (FC 101)36,589,783 36,589,783.00
Other Improvement Fund (FC 150)3,000 3,000.00
Capital Improvement Fund (FC 300)48,175,084 16,339,140.04 6,298,741.00 70,812,965.04
Water Utility Fund (FC 400)216,611,815 66,849,851.00 283,461,666.00
Sewer Utility Fund (FC 410)159,022,034 12,083,142.00 171,105,176.00
Stormwater Utility Fund (FC 420)26,465,800 7,349,551.00 33,815,351.30
Street Lighting Utility Fund (FC 430)8,418,357 1,327,234.00 9,745,591.00
Department of Airports Fund (FC 540)476,954,577 100,000.00 477,054,577.00
Fleet Management Fund (FC 610)23,735,252 13,202,498.00 1,581,719.00 38,519,469.00
Risk Management Fund (FC 620)69,846,524 69,846,524.37
Governmental Immunity Fund (FC 630)4,302,013 94,791.00 4,396,804.00
Information Mgt Serv Fund (FC 650)43,052,934 2,451,295.18 21,000.00 45,525,229.18
Local Building Authority Fund (FC 660)1,172,525 1,172,525.00
Refuse Collection Fund (FC670)29,357,332 9,350,559.00 - 38,707,891.00
Golf Fund (FC 680)26,570,200 957,404.00 250,000.00 27,777,604.00
Housing and Loan Fund (FC 690)14,082,500 14,082,500.00
CDBG Fund (FC 710)4,885,779 4,885,779.00
Miscellaneous Grants Fund (FC 720)12,714,477 3,490,212.72 4,139,704.89 57,000.00 20,401,394.61
Demolition Weed and Forfeiture (FC 730)4,365,000 4,365,000.00
Emergency 911 Dispatch (FC 750)9,646,688 9,646,688.00
Downtown Alliance Fund (FC 760)1,700,000 2,500,000.00 4,200,000.00
Donations Fund (FC 770)500,000 500,000.00
Funding Our Future Fund (FC 780)48,111,572 48,111,571.83
Transportation Fund (FC 785)15,106,833 15,106,833.00
DEA Taskforce (FC 901)1,159,208 1,159,207.61
Community Reinvestment Agency Fund (FC 920)86,036,232 86,036,232.00
Sports Arena Fund (FC 740)79,512,660 79,512,660.00
-
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,912,458,131 353,000.00 137,008,677.94 4,139,704.89 16,454,388.00 - 2,070,413,902.20
4
Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Finance Department
City Council Office
Contingent Appropriation / Notes
5
This page has intentionally been left blank
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
1
Section A: New Items
A-1: Vehicle Replacement for Urban Services
Division GF One-time ($37,000.00)
GF One-time $37,000.00
Fleet One-time $37,000.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: JP Goates, Julie Crookston, Kimberley
Schmeling
For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro, JP Goates, Julie Crookston and Kimberley Schmeling
In April 2025, a compliance enforcement officer was involved in an accident that led to the total loss of one of the
division's Chevy Bolt vehicles. There were no other vehicles involved; the officers swerved to avoid hitting an animal in
the roadway. Since the City is self-insured, Urban Services is fully responsible for the replacement cost of the vehicle.
Since the accident, the division has been using bikes in warmer weather but will need to use a loaner vehicle from the
Fleet Division once bike season ends. However, this is a temporary fix. To re gain full operational capacity, the Urban
Services Division is proposing transferring $37,000 from its operational budget to the Fleet Division to purchase a new
Chevy Bolt. This new vehicle is essential for the division's operations, as it will replace th e lost asset and help maintain
enforcement efficiency and revenue generation.
A-2: Trailer for Facilities Division GF One-time ($30,000.00)
GF One-time $30,000.00
Fleet One-time $30,000.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: JP Goates, Riley Bird, Kimberley
Schmeling
For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro, JP Goates, Riley Bird and Kimberley Schmeling
When the division of Urban Services was created in FY 2026, personnel and equipment were moved from the Facilities
division to Urban Services division. A drop-down trailer, previously an asset of the Facilities team used to move large
equipment, including two scissor lifts, was no longer available for maintena nce and repair work completed by the staff in
that division. An increase in workload related to the Clean City initiative at Urban Services means the trailer is in use
full-time by that team. A drop-down trailer is the safest and most efficient way to move critical large equipment.
Without it, operations are delayed and safety risks increase. Leasing a trailer is not a practical alternative as equipment
is moved daily and is an ongoing need. The Division of Facilities Services is seeking to transfer funds from their
operating budget to Fleet to purchase the trailer needed. No new funds are being requested.
A-3: Wildland Firefighting Expansion Funding GF One-time/
Ongoing $88,000.00
Department: Fire Prepared By: Chief Lieb, Brittany Blair
For questions, please include Chief Lieb and Brittany Blair
The Fire Department is requesting funding to support the expanding needs of our wildland firefighting program, as
wildfire risk increases and conditions continue to change in the region. According to the National Interagency Fire
Center based in Boise, ID, the total number of wildfires nationwide have increased significantly over the last five years.
These fires range from human caused, to natural caused, to cause undetermined. The contributing factors for wildland
fires are the increase in urban centers pushing up against wildland urban interface areas, such as the east and north
benches in SLC, water content in the fuels, environmental temperatures, humidity, and wind speed.
The current request totals $88,000 for the remainder of this fiscal year, $75,000 of which will be ongoing costs (see the
table below). These funds will cover the days of increased staffing during 2025 for periods of extreme fire weather during
July through October, increased wildland training requirements, additional personal protective equipment (PPE), tools,
such as hoses, nozzles and hand tools, and the replacement of aging Bendix King radios, which are over ten years old and
no longer manufactured. The Bendix King radios are the standard radio used in wildland operations and are essential for
the firefighting teams to communicate and coordinate on-scene with our state and regional partners during an event.
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
2
The ongoing request also supports anticipated annual upstaffing needs driven by increasing red flag days, recurring PPE
purchases, further equipment replacement due to loss or damage, expanded wildland training, and ongoing radio
maintenance and replacement.
Category
Personnel
FY26 Request
$25,000
Ongoing Request
$40,000
PPE Equipment $28,000 $25,000
Radios $35,000 $10,000
Total $88,000 $75,000
A-4: Public Lands One-time Personal Services
Budget Rescope for Equipment Purchases GF One-time ($163,900.00)
GF One-time $163,000.00
Fleet One-time $163,900.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Gregg Evans
For questions, please include Gregg Evans
The Public Lands Department is requesting to rescope $163,900 in existing FY 2026 personnel budget which, if
approved, will be transferred to the Fleet Fund as one-time funding for the purchase of capital equipment. The funds
being requested for this transfer to Fleet were generated from attrition and vacancy savings from the first half of this
fiscal year. Savings are generated throughout the fiscal year from positions remaining vacant during the typical hiring
process, especially when there is difficulty in hiring some positions. The Department continually tracks the duration of
all vacancies to calculate the estimated savings.
The Department is proposing to use the one-time funds to purchase the equipment detailed below.
• $50,300 - Kubota RTV Utility Vehicle, this new unit will support the ongoing watering of newly planted
trees throughout the maintenance district 2 area. Currently, staff are using a 1 -ton dump truck for tree watering,
adding this vehicle will free up a 1-ton truck in District 2 used for watering trees to be repurposed to the detail
(rag) crew in District 2.
• $47,500 - Toro Dingo to replace stolen trencher (Unit # 81510) with a new trencher.
• $15,600 – Aerator, the new aerator requested will help prevent soil compaction in high-use common and
spectator areas at the Regional Athletic Complex (RAC). Currently, the RAC does not own an aerator and has
relied on borrowing the Parks Department’s unit for more than five years. The current unit will be repurposed to
perform turf aeration on park properties throughout the City.
• $50,500 - Caterpillar model 302 C3 small excavator for trail repairs and maintenance. The primary
purpose of this new machine will be in-house trail construction and maintenance performed by the Trails Team.
Currently, all machine work on trails is either contracted out with variable results or completed using rented
equipment at a cost of approximately $4,000 per month. The Trails Team now has an experienced machine
operator on staff with six years of trail construction and maintenance experience, allowing this work to be
completed internally with greater consistency and higher quality results. In addition, this excavator would also
support restoration projects, fire mitigation efforts, and vegetation management across Natural Lands
properties.
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
3
A-5: Park Land Acquisition CIP One-time ($405,000.00)
CIP One-time $405,000.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Gregg Evans
For questions, please include Gregg Evans
The Public Lands Department in coordination with Real Estate Services is requesting a budget amendment in the
amount of $405,000 that will utilize Parks Impact Fees to fund the acquisition of 1.09 acres of open space.
***This item will require a closed session to discuss th is confidential land acquisition***
A-6: Pedestrian Bridge Over the Surplus Canal
at Glendale Golf Course GF One-time $250,000.00
Golf One-time $250,000.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Mark Stephens, Dawn Valente
For questions, please include Mark Stephens, Dawn Valente and Tammy Hunsaker
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Salt Lake County Flood Control (SLCoFC) identified multiple
unpermitted encroachment violations along the Surplus Canal located within the geographic boundaries of Salt Lake
City. Resolution of these encroachment violations were shared between SLC Public Utilities, SLC Engineering and the
SLC Airport. One of the major encroachment violations assigned to SLC Engineering was the permitting and erosion
control of an existing, previously constructed pedestrian bridge at the Glendale Golf Course spanning the Surplus Levee
Canal.
The above-mentioned USACE design review process and approvals have taken years, and until recently Engineering did
not know when the final USACE would be approved. Now that the USACE has provided approval, project bidding and
construction is considered urgent, and as such, obtaining funding through a budget amendment process has been
deemed the best approach in lieu of waiting for the next Capital Asset Planning process.
The $250,000 requested in this amendment is to cover construction costs associated with installing the erosion control
rip-rap revetment under the existing bridge surrounding the piles driven into the canal that support the bridge structure
above. USACE requires the placement of this revetment t o treat existing erosion and to prevent further erosion around
the pedestrian bridge piles that support the structure. This will also ensure and protect the structural integrity of the
Surplus Canal banks. Increases to flood insurance costs could be incurred by surrounding residents and businesses if the
City does not address this violation.
Part of the reason for the emergency is that as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) updates their Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) based on levee conditions reported by USACE, any lacking levee deficiency , such as the one
to be rectified by the proposed project, poses the risk for flood insurance rates to be increased for those properties,
homes and businesses protected by the levee.
A-7: Moved to Housekeeping as D-6
A-8: Withdrawn
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
4
A-9: Public Services Facilities Division: Old
Library Immediate Facility Needs GF One-time $195,000.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: JP Goates, Josh Lander, Kimberley
Schmeling
For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro, JP Goates, Josh Lander and Kimberley Schmeling
Maintenance activities began in September of this year with miscellaneous repairs for The Leonardo, but when the
building was vacated by the tenant and turned over to the City, activities have ramped up and have included but have not
been limited to:
- grounds maintenance,
- repairs to doors, plumbing, electrical and mechanical systems,
- janitorial and moving services, and
- security.
Work on these items needs to continue at a minimum to keep the building functional and secure. Public Services is
requesting $195,000 to continue maintenance and security efforts. The largest of these expenses will be $130,000 for
security access and camera installations; the remaining funding will be for the maintenance expenses listed above.
Security updates have been deemed necessary because the building’s existing access control system is outdated and in
need of repair. In addition, the city no longer has licensing for Mellennium, which means City badges cannot be
programmed to work with the existing system. Also, since this is a City building, the City’s Security Director has
requested that cameras be installed to monitor the site.
A-10: Backhoe for Public Services Streets
Division & Tractor for Public Lands Parks
Division
GF One-time $292,819.00
Fleet One-time $292,819.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Julie Crookston, Kimberley
Schmeling
For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro, Julie Crookston and Kimberley Schmeling
Two assets -- one in Public Lands and one in Streets -- have recently experienced severe and unrepairable breaks.
Public Lands Tractor – This asset had a catastrophic break occur recently. It will cost about $7,000 to repair.
However, prior to the break the estimated value of the asset was no more than $1,000 due to its age and continued heavy
use. The tractor was originally purchased in 2008 and has been eligible for replacement since August 2023. Due to
volume of assets needing replaced, both in Public Lands and throughout the City, replacement of other older or more
critical assets have taken priority. Of the 52 assets Public Lands needed replaced, this tractor was originally 37 th on the
list in order of seniority. Fleet and Public Lands have now determined this tractor needs to be replaced as soon as
possible, rather than waiting for the FY 2027 replacement cycle. Parks District 1 (serving Pioneer Park, Riverside Park,
Cottonwood Park, etc.) uses this asset heavily since it has many different attachments which allow it to be used for a
variety of tasks. For example, it is used in the spring as a seed spreader and fertilizer. In the fall, it is used as a leaf
collector, leaf blower, and a sweeper. In the summer it functions as a backup mower. There are no rental options
available for this type of tractor. It is imperative this asset is replaced with one that is compatible with all the
attachments we already own. Fleet has committed all of the FY 2026 replacement funding and is unable to cover the cost
of replacing this asset. Likewise, Public Lands does not have enough projected end-of-year savings to cover the cost. The
cost of replacing the tractor is $55,819. The lead time for this asset is a minimum of three months .
Streets Backhoe – This asset also suffered a catastrophic break. The current estimated value of the backhoe prior to
the break was about $27,000. The repairs needed are estimated to cost over $40,000, and due to the nature of the
required repairs, it is likely there will continue to be repair issues with this asset even after the repairs. As such, it is not
economical to repair the backhoe.
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
5
This asset was not projected to be eligible for replacement until 2027. After review, it was determined there was no abuse
by the users, and the asset was being used appropriately and for its intended purpose. This asset is heavily utilized,
creating a large amount of wear and tear. It has been operated by the concrete crews as they repair concrete throughout
the City and is vital to their work excavating damaged concrete prior to pouring new concrete. This asset needs to be
replaced as soon as possible rather than waiting for the FY 2027 replacement cycle. There are no rental options available
for this exact size, and a smaller backhoe would greatly decrease efficiency of the team, creating a reduction of service.
Fleet has committed all FY 2026 replacement funding and is unable to cover the cost of replacing this asset. Likewise,
Streets does not have enough projected end-of-year savings to cover the cost. The cost of replacing the backhoe is
$237,000.
In the backup documentation quotes for both assets are provided. Public Services is also requesting a straw poll for this
BA, to allow the orders to be placed as soon as possible, and thus delivered as quickly as possible.
A-11: Old Library, Plaza 349 and Justice Courts
Capital Improvements CIP One-time $5,498,741.00
GF One-Time 889,800.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Jorge Chamorro, JP Goates,
Kimberley Schmeling
For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro, JP Goates and Kimberley Schmeling
To support internal growth, with the most pressing one being the addition of a new judge and their supportive staff at the
Justice Courts building, and to address space constraints in several City offices, the City plans to reinvest in three key
facilities: the Old Library, Plaza 349 and Justice Courts. This initiative may include completing essential infrastructure
upgrades (elevators, HVAC, etc.) at the Old Library (former Leonardo museum), converting into a mixed-use space
including City offices on the third floor and classrooms, meeting, and gallery space on the second floor, and additional
administrative offices on the first floor.
It also includes addressing aging systems at Plaza 349 and supporting the relocation of certain Justice Courts staff. This
will allow time for the City to explore alternatives to adequately house the Justice Courts.
The Department intends to utilize the interest accrued from the tax-exempt bond. Upon review, it has been determined
that the above-mentioned project costs are eligible to be covered by bond interest proceeds.
The Architectural team has prepared a high-level estimate of $5,498,741. The project includes interior renovations to
accommodate the Justice Courts ($300,000), critical repairs to the elevators ($250,000), storm dr ainage ($36,000), and
tech ($75,000). Permits will cost $45,000. Design, engineering and project management ($822,941), and
construction/general contracting, and contingencies ($3,080,000) make up the bulk of the expense. Furniture, fixtures
and equipment (FF+E) expenses ($889,800) round out the budget.
The FF+E will not be included in bond interest financing and will be supported by General Fund Fund Balance.
A-12: Trailer for Public Services Streets Division GF One-time ($58,000.00)
GF One-time $58,000.00
Fleet One-time $58,000.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Julie Crookston, James Aguilar,
Kimberley Schmeling
For questions, please include Jorge Chamorro, Julie Crookston, James Aguilar and Kimberley
Schmeling
A trailer used by the Streets division in Public Services has suffered a permanent break. The metal frame has cracked and
is unrepairable. This trailer is a critical piece of equipment used by Streets' asphalt crews to haul equipment to roadways
when they are performing more robust asphalt repairs, such as repairing larger than normal potholes and doing inlays.
This asset was not projected to be eligible for replacement until 2027. After a review it was determined there was no
abuse by the users, and the asset was being used appropriately and for its intended purpose. This asset is heavily utilized,
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
6
thus creating a large amount of wear and tear. Fleet has committed all the FY 2026 replacement funding and is unable to
cover the cost of replacing this asset this year. Streets is currently projected to have enough end -of-year savings to cover
the cost of replacing this trailer. This amendment is to transfer $58,000 from Streets to Fleet cover the cost of replacing
the asset.
A-13: Funding for Gap in Homeless Resource
Center Grant Funding for Salaries GF Ongoing $292,833.00
Department: Police Prepared By: David Pond, Shellie Dietrich
For questions, please include Chief Redd, Shellie Dietrich and David Pond
Budget for HRC mitigation officer salary portion not covered by the State HRC grant $292,833. The amount of funding
awarded for the FY 2026 HRC mitigation grant to cover the 19.0 employees is $2,735,048 which was a reduction of
$210,909 from FY 2025 funded at $2,945,957. The total estimated personnel cost is $3,027,881 requiring a budget of
$292,833 for FY 2026 general fund. The existing funding provides for 19 FTE's, which is three squads and a supervising
Lieutenant. To maintain functionality at the Homeless Resource Center, Police needs to keep staffing at this level.
A-14: Police Overtime Funding in FY 2026 GF Ongoing $3,810,941.00
Department: Police Prepared By: David Pond, Shellie Dietrich
For questions, please include Chief Redd, Shellie Dietrich and David Pond
The police department is requesting additional funding to cover overtime expense. This cost is currently budgeted at
$3,993,611 and the department does not have anticipated vacancy savings to cover overtime. The total overtime in FY
2026 is not expected to reach the FY 2025 total cost of $8,244,009 but is trending at the FY 2024 actuals of $7,804,990.
The police department utilizes overtime to manage shift coverage in the heavy summer months, provide mitigation,
proactive enforcement, and staff special events. In FY 2025, the department had an overtime budget of $6 ,886,430 and
utilized vacancy savings to cover the additional costs above budget. This year the department does not anticipate vacancy
savings and is requesting additional budget of $3,810,941.
With the changes in the department organization structure, staff, and staffing levels; the department is working to make
long-term improvements to reduce the need for overtime at this level. This will take time, and this budget item is a one-
time request with the intention to support the remainder of FY 2026.
The police department is requesting additional funds to cover overtime.
Ongoing: $2,493,611
Funded in MRB: $1,500,000
FY 26 Budget $3,993,611
FY 26 Expense to date: $3,301,926
FY 26 Trending $7,804,553
FY 26 additional funds needed $3,810,941
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
7
A-15: Police Retirements Cost GF One-time $977,286.00
Department: Police Prepared By: David Pond, Shellie Dietrich
For questions, please include Chief Redd, Shellie Dietrich and David Pond
The police department is requesting additional funding to cover retirement payouts. This cost is not currently budgeted,
and the department does not have anticipated vacancy savings to cover this cost.
Personnel costs for Retirement and severance:
Retirement and Severance Payout Amount through 10/31 $805,286
Known Pending Retirements through 1/31/2026 $172,000
Total $977,286
A-16: Police Mobile Command Center GF One-time $1,000,000
Fleet One-time $1,000,000
Department: Police Prepared By: David Pond, Shellie Dietrich
For questions, please include Chief Redd, Shellie Dietrich and David Pond
A mobile command center is needed by the police department to manage on scene response and presence at natural
disasters, large scale events, events with long durations, special events and protests. A lead time of 1 year requires budget
in FY 2026 to facilitate delivery and availability for large events scheduled for Early 2027.
Mobile Command Center (MCC) - The police department is requesting one-time funding to acquire a mobile command
center. The estimated cost is $1,000,000.
This funding request seeks support for the acquisition of a Mobile Command Center (MCC) to significantly improve the
operational capabilities the Police Department. The MCC will serve as a critical asset in managing emergencies,
coordinating multi-agency responses, and ensuring public safety during high-risk incidents and large-scale events. The
investment aligns with city and state priorities for public safety, emergency preparedness, community resilience and the
Public Safety Plan.
Our jurisdiction faces a growing number of complex public safety challenges, including:
• Natural disasters (earthquakes, wildfires, floods, severe weather)
• Mass casualty incidents and active shooter events
• Large public gatherings and civil disturbances
• Infrastructure failures and cybersecurity threats
Having a MCC will provide the tools necessary to meet those challenges and:
• Enhance emergency response times and coordination.
• Improve situational awareness and decision-making during critical incidents.
• Provide a secure and centralized location for command operations.
• Increase community engagement and visibility during public events.
• Increase public confidence in law enforcement preparedness.
Currently, Salt Lake City Police lacks a mobile, self-sufficient platform to coordinate field operations during such events.
The police department had a motorhome which was recently disposed of by fleet that was purchased used in 2001 that
hasn’t been functional or operable for a year. As a result, the department relies on neighboring local or state agencies for
use of a command center during critical incidents. While the fire department has a mobile command center, in a major
response to a disaster, critical incident or major event, both departments will need on-scene command capabilities to
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
8
manage resources and response. This request ensures both departments can operate independently and effectively
during major incidents.
This gap limits our ability to respond swiftly, communicate effectively, and manage resources efficiently in dynamic
environments.
The Mobile Command Center represents a strategic investment in public safety infrastructure. With support for funding,
the Police Department will be better equipped to protect lives, property, and critical infrastructure during emergencies
and high-risk events. The Police Department respectfully requests consideration for funding to support this vital
initiative.
A-17: Justice Court, City Prosecutor's Office and
Legal Defenders Association (LDA) Staffing
Increases
GF Ongoing $201,749.00
IMS One-time $21,000.00
Department: Justice Court / Attorney’s Office Prepared By: Ben Luedtke
For questions, please include Ben Luedtke, Cindy Lou Trishman, Mark Kittrell, Kathryn Fairchild
Justice Court, City Prosecutor's Office, and Legal Defenders Association (LDA) Staffing Increases
($201,749 from General Fund Balance of which $174,220 is ongoing for personnel, $6,529 is ongoing for Justice Court
operations, and $21,000 is one-time to the IMS Fund for computers)
The Administration is proposing funding to add a total of 11 FTEs across the three offices including four FTEs at the
Justice Court, four FTEs at the City Prosecutor’s Office, and funding for three FTEs at the LDA (who are not City
employees). If this item is approved as proposed plus a sixth judge, then the FY2027 annual budget would need
$1,554,826 to cover the fully loaded annual costs. Details of the proposed positions and costs are provided below and
grouped by each of the three offices.
Simultaneously adding staff capacity in all three offices to address increasing workload is the recommended approach
because there are multiple interdependencies between the offices. Since annual budget deliberations in the spring, case
filings continued to grow especially for criminal cases and criminal hearings which have exceeded pre-pandemic levels.
The additional staff proposed would reduce workload per employee to support service levels.
Sixth Justice Court Judge
It’s important to note that funding for a sixth judge is not included in this budget amendment because the appointment
process is estimated to take six months and would exceed the current fiscal year period. The Administration is requesting
the Council’s approval for a sixth judge, FTE to begin the hiring and appointment process. Funding for a sixth judge
would be included in the FY2027 annual budget and has a fully loaded estimated cost of $266,447. Earlier this year, in
August the Administration recommended and in October the Council adopted an ordinance amendment to City Code
Chapter 2.84 to allow future expansion of judgeships at the Justice Court including a sixth judge. The State Judicial
Council also authorized a sixth judge at the City’s Justice Court. Per City Code, the Mayor appoints a Justice Court judge,
and they are then confirmed by the City Council. Per Utah Code, justice court judges serve for a six-year term.
A total of $112,714 to the Justice Court
The Justice Court is proposed to receive $97,185 for three new FTEs, $9,000 for three computers, and $6,529 for
increased operating costs to mostly cover more interpreters and several smaller expenses. The total number of FTEs in
the Justice Court would increase to 48 FTEs (9% increase including the sixth judge). If all the positions and operational
costs are approved including a sixth judge, then the FY2027 annual budget would need $630,411.
- $50,891 ongoing to cover four months of a new Clerk of Court which is a new position at the Justice Court (see
the attached HR approved job description), and $3,000 one-time for a computer. The fully loaded annual cost of
the position is estimated at $152,672. This position would function like a department deputy director which the
Justice Court does not currently have.
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
9
- $46,294 ongoing to cover three months for two direct support Judicial Assistants Level 2 ($23,147 each),
and $6,000 one-time for three computers. The fully loaded annual cost of the positions is estimated at $185,177
($92,589 each). These judicial assistants would work directly with the sixth Justice Court judge providing
administrative support. The funding is proposed for three months to allow time for the new supervisor position
(Clerk of Court) to be hired one month earlier and to allow six-months training before the sixth judge is
appointed.
- $6,529 ongoing to cover three months of increased operational costs which would mostly be used for
interpreter services. The funds may also be used for several other expenses such as jury fees, equipment
maintenance, printing and postage among others. The FY2027 annual budget would need $26,115 to cover a full
year of the increased operational costs.
A total of $55,920 to the City Prosecutor’s Office
The City Prosecutor’s Office is proposed to receive $43,920 for four new FTEs, and $12,000 for four computers. The total
number of FTEs in the office would increase to 36 FTEs (13% increase). If all the positions are approved, then the
FY2027 annual budget would need $527,041 to fully cover the annual cost.
- $33,699 ongoing to cover one month for three Associate Prosecutors ($11,233 each), and $9,000 one-time
for three computers. The fully loaded annual cost of the positions is estimated at $404,383 ($134,794 each).
These positions would help reduce the per attorney caseload.
- $10,221 ongoing to cover one month for a Paralegal, and $3,000 one-time for a computer. The fully loaded
annual cost of the position is estimated at $ $122,657. Attorneys have absorbed some paralegal work to fit within
staffing limits so adding this position would free up time for attorneys to work on other matters. This position
would support discovery, screenings, and diversion efforts.
A total of $33,115 to the Legal Defenders Association (LDA)
The LDA is proposed to receive $33,115 for three new positions which are not City employees; this additional funding
would be added to the annual Nondepartmental line-item for the LDA contract with the City. If all the positions are
approved, then the FY2027 annual budget would need $397,374 to fully cover the annual cost. This would increase the
total contract amount to $2,191,184 (22% increase).
- $25,467 ongoing to cover one month for two Attorneys ($12,734 each). The fully loaded annual cost of the
positions is estimated at $305,607 ($152,804 each). These positions would help reduce the per attorney
caseload. Legal defenders are not involved in every case; the LDA doesn’t get involved in cases that are resolved
before appointment and are not usually appointed on cases that involve only infraction level charges .
- $7,647 ongoing to cover one month for a Case Manager. The fully loaded annual cost of the position is
estimated at $91,767. The case manager would support the Familiar Faces Court and diversion efforts including
Project Rio.
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
10
A-18: Parking Wayfinding Signage GF One-time $167,500.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson
For questions, please include Kyle Cook, Jorge Chamorro, James Aguilar, Orion Goff and Tammy
Hunsaker
Design options have been developed for parking wayfinding signage where signage needs replacement or has been
deemed necessary. The cost estimate of $167,500 is broken out in the table below and is estimated to cover the cost of 65
signs.
Cost per sign Total Cost
45 Updated Signs $1,500 $67,500
20 New Signs $5,000 $100,000
Subtotal $167,500
A-19: Exhibit Space at the City County Building CIP One-time $500,000.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson
For questions, please include Jill Love, Alejandro Sanchez and Mary Beth Thompson
Funding for design and fabrication of display cases on the third floor of the City County Building. These costs will cover
design work and also fabrication costs. Exhibits created will be consistent with the architecture of the building.
This will be funding by Bond Interest Income.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Legislative Affairs Operations Funding GF Ongoing $80,000.00
Department: Attorney Prepared By: Cindy Lou Trishman
For questions, please include Cindy Lou Trishman
Amending the budget to include the previously provided $80,000 to Legislative Affairs for operating costs. Costs include
state capital access, parking needs, travel, professional development, and event support.
D-2: Engineering Planning and Design
Housekeeping and Expansion GF Ongoing ($350,000.00)
GF Ongoing $350,000.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Mark Stephens, Julianne Sabula
For questions, please include Tammy Hunsaker, Mark Stephens and Julianne Sabula
In the annual budget, as part of the Ongoing Commitments a transfer of $350,000 was set up to be made from General
Fund to the CIP fund. It was determined for FY 2026 that it would be better housed in the Non -Departmental cost
center within the general fund, however the accounting for the transfer did not get corrected. This budget amendment
first needs to correct the "transfer to CIP fund" to an operational expense in the Non-Departmental cost center. This
portion of the BA request is simply housekeeping.
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
11
In addition to the housekeeping request, the Administration is requesting clarification on the types of projects that these
funds can be used for. In the current budget, these funds are called, “Planning and Design” and have been intended to
facilitate the planning and design of CIP projects prior to construction. For purposes of clarity, the Administration is
requesting that these funds be used not only to develop design documents and cost estimates but expanded to include
creating and updating master plans and other plans that are required by federal or state requirements.
D-3: Refuse Fund Carry Revenue Budget for
Lease Agreement Refuse One-time $0.00
Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Debbie Lyons
For questions, please include Debbie Lyons, Chris Bell and Ammon Jacobsmeyer
The Sustainability Department is requesting $8,918,482 in revenue for the Refuse Fund. As part of BA#1, the revenues to
offset expenses were not accounted for. Budget is required in order to realize financing revenue to enter lease agreements
for the new Waste & Recycling collection vehicles we expect to receive in FY 2026.
D-4: Community Events - Rescope GF One-Time $0.00
Department: Administration Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson
For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson
This item is to rescope $400,000 budgeted in NonDepartmental from Open Streets as follows:
$100,000 for the DTA Blocks program;
$200,000 for the watch party; and
$100,000 for America 250 events.
Unused funds will drop to fund balance. Money is being raising to support these events.
D-5: Streets GO Bonds Interest Reallocation for
FY 2025-26 CIP One-time ($1,735,515.83)
CIP One-time $1,735,515.83
Department: CAN Prepared By: Dawn Valente, Dustin Petersen
For questions, please include Dawn Valente, Dustin Petersen and Brent Beck
This budget amendment is requesting to allocate the interest from FY 2025 BA#2 for Streets GO bonds in the amount of
$1,735,515.83, in addition to any interest which will accrue while processing the invoice reallocations and bond draws
from July 1, 2025 through the remainder of the fiscal year June 30, 2026, to be used to fund additional rebuilds of city
streets as determined by the Engineering Division's Six Year Pavement Plan and deliberations of the Roadway Selection
Committee.
Engineering would like to request a straw poll for this housekeeping reallocation. Once approved, Engineering will need
to do journal entries to reallocate costs for Treasury to do the bond draws for the bonds that have expired. Then if there
is residual interest, another budget amendment will be needed for the remaining unallocated interest, along with
additional invoices to be reallocated so the totality of these bonds can be spent. Waiting for the bond draws will incur
additional earned interest which may be subject to arbitrage and the potential loss of funding for more roadway rebuilds.
One project that Engineering is looking to fund after the reallocation funding is complete is the 1700 East reconstruction
from 1700 South to 2100 South which was on the original reconstruction list but had to be pulled due to funding
shortage in the 2018 GO Bond series. Engineering and Transportation are working alongside Public Utilities to
coordinate their storm drainage project along 1700 East within and ahead of our road construction project limits, as well
as the Highland High Reconstruction that the school board will be doing over the next few years. This should be another
success story like 2100 South reconstruction where Engineering is able to install all the upgraded sewer and water lines
for Public Utilities as part of the roadway construction project to accommodate forthcoming private development
Salt Lake City FY 2025-26 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
One-time
or Ongoing Amount
12
capacity needs without having to tear up new pavement within a few years. This collaboration with the City’s internal
Departments/Divisions and external entities is saving taxpayer dollars.
D-6: California Avenue Safety Improvements
Rescope CIP One-time $0.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Julianne Sabula
For questions, please include Julianne Sabula, Jon Larsen and Tammy Hunsaker
City Council funded a constituent requested project in the fall of 2024 to improve pedestrian safety in the Glendale
neighborhood. The project proposed to relocate curb and gutter to widen sidewalks and reduce the pedestrian crossing
distance on California Avenue, between Glendale Drive and Concord St, along with other safety improvements. During
the civil design work, it was discovered that relocating the curb and gutter would be more expensive than anticipated to
allow proper drainage of the relatively flat elevation. Transportation is requesting to rescope funding to allow other
improvements, as well as to expand the project area to include two nearby schools. Potential improvements could
include landscaping, lighting, traffic calming, pedestrian safety i mprovements and/or school crosswalk. Adequate funds
are available to address these items, but the Council needs to approve the budget rescope.
D-7: CPTED Streetlighting– GF to CIP Transfer CIP One-Time $300,000
Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson
As part of the annual budget, the $300,000 was not recognized in key chances with the adoption of the CIP Budget. This
action is to recognize this item.
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: Trail Maintenance for Salt Lake City Portion
of the Jordan River Trail Misc Grants One-time $57,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Amy Dorsey, Julianne Sabula
For questions, please include Amy Dorsey and Julianne Sabula
This budget amendment is to recognize the City's funding availability grant award in the amount of $57,600 for the
purpose of removing dead and dying trees and other woody vegetation to improve navigability, safety and beautification
of the Jordan River between 1700 South and 900 South.
Section F: Donations
Section G: Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda #
Section I: Council Added Items
This page has intentionally been left blank
Budget Amendment #4
Revenue Forecast
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Revenue FY26 Annual Budget
FY26 Amended
Budget Projection
Amended Variance
Favorable/(Unfavorable)
Property Taxes 148,580,334 148,580,334 148,580,334 -
Sales, Use & Excise Taxes 126,026,000 126,026,000 126,000,000 (26,000)
Franchise Taxes 17,220,000 17,220,000 17,339,305 119,305
Total Taxes 291,826,334 291,826,334 291,919,639 93,305
Charges For Services 6,821,820 6,821,820 5,056,754 (1,765,066)
Fines & Forfeitures 3,085,827 3,085,827 3,074,937 (10,890)
Interest Income 9,000,000 9,000,000 9,000,000 -
Interfund Service Charges 34,569,169 34,569,169 34,574,395 5,226
Intergovernmental Revenue 6,205,000 6,205,000 6,073,983 (131,017)
Licenses 21,847,694 21,847,694 22,024,495 176,801
Miscellaneous Revenue 3,838,663 3,838,663 3,808,672 (29,991)
Parking Meter Revenue 3,273,255 3,273,255 3,956,050 682,795
Parking Tickets 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 -
Permits 18,981,859 18,981,859 20,235,322 1,253,463
Property Sale Proceeds - - 24,741 24,741
Gain on Property Dispositions - - 272 272
Rental & Other Income 1,201,460 1,201,460 1,270,554 69,094
Operating Transfers In 24,780,192 24,780,192 24,780,192 -
Total W/O Special Tax 135,804,939 135,804,939 136,080,367 275,428
Sales Tax Addition 1/2%58,000,000 58,000,000 58,000,000 -
Total General Fund 485,631,273 485,631,273 486,000,006 368,733
Budget Amendment #4
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND $0.00 $8,650,923.00
FLEET FUND 1,581,719.00 1,581,719.00
CIP FUND 5,798,741.00 6,298,741.00
REFUSE FUND 8,918,482.00 0.00
GOLF FUND 250,000.00 250,000.00
IMS FUND 9,000.00 9,000.00
MISC GRANTS
FUND 57,000.00 57,000.00
TOTAL $16,614,942 $16,847,383
$8,650,923 IN EXPENSES IN THE
GENERAL FUND.
CHANGES IN SEVEN (7) FUNDS,
WITH A TOTAL REVENUE
INCREASE OF $16,614,942 AND
A CORRESPONDING
EXPENDITURE INCREASE OF
$16,847,383.
THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES THE
ADDITION OF EIGHT (8)
GENERAL FUND-FUNDED
POSITIONS.
Fund Balance
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL Beginning Fund Balance 27,841,978 146,448,554 174,290,532 22,746,360 120,121,319 142,867,679 Prior Year Encumbrances (3,547,119) (18,657,815) (22,204,934) - - (18,919,920) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 24,294,859$ 127,790,739$ 152,085,598$ 22,746,360$ 120,121,319$ 123,947,759$
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 39.57% 30.50% 31.66% 38.72% 26.47% 24.19%Year End ACFR AdjustmentsRevenue ChangesExpense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (3,188,435) (3,188,435) 15,024 15,024 Fund Balance w/ ACFR Changes 24,294,859 124,602,304 148,897,163 22,746,360 120,136,343 123,962,783
Final Fund Balance Percent 39.57% 29.74% 30.99% 38.72% 26.48% 24.19%Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (4,162,906) (36,664,442) (40,827,348) - (27,392,780) (27,392,780) Budget Amendment Use of Fund BalanceBA#1 Revenue Adjustment 469,408 469,408 BA#1 Expense Adjustment (2,468,933) (2,468,933) (358,000) (358,000) BA#2 Revenue Adjustment 102,000 102,000 BA#2 Expense Adjustment (3,407,524) (3,407,524) (913,000) (913,000) BA#3 Revenue Adjustment 3,904,861 3,904,861 BA#3 Expense Adjustment (3,959,861) (3,959,861) - BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - - BA#4 Expense Adjustment - - (8,650,923) (8,650,923) BA#5 Revenue Adjustment 1,013,067 1,013,067 BA#5 Expense Adjustment (5,200,000) (4,736,688) (9,936,688) BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - BA#6 Expense AdjustmentChange in RevenueChange in ExpenseFund Balance Budgeted Increase
Adjusted Fund Balance 22,746,360 120,121,319 142,867,679 22,746,360 82,821,640 86,648,080
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 37.05% 28.67% 29.74% 38.72% 18.25% 16.91%
Projected Revenue 61,397,384 419,006,975 480,404,359 58,749,999 453,721,525 512,471,524
Salt Lake City
General Fund
TOTAL
Fund Balance Projections
FY2026 BudgetFY2025 Budget
Budget Amendment #4
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Section A: New Items: 20 Items (3 Removed)
Section D: Housekeeping: Seven (7) Items
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources: One (1) Item
New Items
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
A-1: Vehicle Replacement for Urban Services: GF/Fleet, $37k
A-2: Trailer for Facilities: GF/Fleet, $30k
A-3: Wildland Firefighting Expansion Funding: GF, $88k
A-4: Public Lands One-time Personal Services Budget Rescope: GF, Fleet, $163,900
A-5: Park Land Acquisition: CIP, $405k
A-6: Pedestrian Bridge Over the Surplus Canal at Glendale Golf Course: CIP/Golf, $250k
A-9: Public Services Facilities Division: Old Library Immediate Facility Needs: GF, $195k
A-10: Backhoe for Public Services Streets Division & Public Lands Parks Division:
GF/Fleet, $292,819
New Items
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
A-11: Old Library, Plaza 349 and Justice Courts Capital Improvements, CIP/GF: $5,498,741
A-12: Trailer for Public Services Streets Division: CIP/Fleet, $58k
A-13: Funding for Gap in Homeless Resource Center Grant Funding for Salaries: GF, $292,833
A-14: Police Overtime Funding: GF, $3,810,941
A-15: police Retirement Costs: GF, $977,286
A-16: Police Mobile Command Center: GF/Fleet, $1,000,000
A-17: Justice Court, City Prosecutor's Office and Legal Defenders Association (LDA) Staffing
Increases: GF/IMS, $189,749
A-18: Parking Way-finding Signage: GF, $548,495
A-20: Funding for Fisher Mansion: CIP, $500,000
Housekeeping Items
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
D-1: Legislative Affairs Operating Budget, GF, $80k
D-2: Engineering Planning and Design Housekeeping and Expansion: GF, Budget Neutral
D-3: Refuse Fund Carry Revenue Budget for Lease Agreement: Refuse, $0
D-4: Community Events – Rescope, GF, Budget Neutral
D-5: Streets GO Bonds Interest Reallocation for FY 2025-26, CIP, Budget Neutral
D-6: California Avenue Safety Improvements Rescope, CIP, Budget Neutral
D-7: CPTED Streetlighting – GF to CIP Transfer, $300k
Grant Items
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
E-1: Trail Maintenance for Salt Lake City Portion of the Jordan River Trail: Misc Grants, $57k
Questions
SALT LAKE CITY BOARD MEMBER TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date:
12/10/2025
Date Sent To Council:
12/17/2025
From:
Otto, Rachel
Subject: Board reappointment Recommendation: Business Advisory Board
Recommendation:
The Administration recommends the Council approve the reappointment of Andy Robertson to the Business Advisory Board for a 4 year term
starting on the date of City Council advice and consent and ending on the last Monday in December.
Andy Robertson currently lives outside the City.
Approved:*
Otto, Rachel
DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYOR DIRECTOR
TO: Mayor Mendenhall
FROM: Will Wright, Salt Lake City Economic Development
RE: Business Advisory Board Appointment Recommendation
Dear Mayor Mendenhall:
The Department of Economic Development would like to recommend Andy Robertson, Managing Director
and Interim Executive Director at BioHive, for a non-voting position on the Business Advisory Board.
Andy has served the last four years on the Business Advisory Board, representing D3 as Vice-President of
IONIQ Sciences, including serving as Vice-Chair of the Business Advisory Board in 2023 and Chair in
2024. Andy is a graduate of East High School in Salt Lake City and the University of Utah and from his
first day on the Business Advisory Board has been the most vocal and passionate member of the Board.
Andy is willing to give his time and talents to the Business Advisory Board and lend his voice to issues
impacting the business, life science, and healthcare innovation communities.
We strongly support Andy’s application to the Business Advisory Board as a non-voting member. Please
find attached his resume and application. Feel free to reach out if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Will Wright
Business Development Project Manager
Liaison to the Business Advisory Board
Salt Lake City Department of Economic Development
801-535-7936
william.wright@slcgov.com
SALT LAKE CITY BOARD MEMBER TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date:
12/22/2025
Date Sent To Council:
12/24/2025
From:
Otto, Rachel
Subject: Board reappointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission
Recommendation:
The Administration recommends the Council approve the reappointment of Julia Summerfield to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission for
a 2 year term starting on the date of City Council advice and consent and ending on the last Monday in December.
Julia Summerfield currently lives in District 3.
Approved:*
Otto, Rachel
SALT LAKE CITY BOARD MEMBER TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date:
12/22/2025
Date Sent To Council:
12/24/2025
From:
Otto, Rachel
Subject: Board reappointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission
Recommendation:
The Administration recommends the Council approve the reappointment of Katherine Durante to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission for
a 2 year term starting on the date of City Council advice and consent and ending on the last Monday in December.
Katherine Durante currently lives in District 5.
Approved:*
Otto, Rachel
SALT LAKE CITY BOARD MEMBER TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date:
01/06/2026
Date Sent To Council:
01/06/2026
From:
Otto, Rachel
Subject: Board reappointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission
Recommendation:
The Administration recommends the Council approve the reappointment of Steven Calbert to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission for a 2
year term starting on the date of City Council advice and consent and ending on the last Monday in December.
Steven Calbert currently lives outside the City.
Approved:*
Otto, Rachel
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
12/11/2025 11:12 Morgen Starkebaum 2026 Budget Amendment Hi Chris, Please vote no on 2026 budget amendment 3 on items 1, 2, & 3. I do not want to live in a police
surveillance state. Our tax dollars should be going towards uplifting people from poverty, not putting them deeper
in the hole. The idea of regular citizens being tracked everywhere we go is deeply troubling. Clearing naturally
occurring brush from the Jordan River will only destroy the habitat of our wildlife. Please vote in favor of privacy and
finding better solutions for our unhoused neighbors. Thank you, Morgan Starkebaum Marmalade/Capitol Hill
district resident
12/23/2025 10:43 Janet Hemming 1/3 Concerns and Opposition on the
Sugar House Park Hotel
Dear Dan: Several community councils and leaders wanted to share their views about the proposed hotel in the
Sugar House Park. This letter represents those opinions.Two councils are in your district, one is in Eva’s and one is
in Chris’. Others are very interested in adding their names — but because of travel and other obstacles — won’t do
so until January. In this letter we reference Judi Short, Lands Use and Zoning Chair in Sugar House. She has
reviewed the letter and the attributions. It’s being sent during a very busy holiday season but we hope you and your
Council colleagues will have time to look it over before the project comes before the full City Council in 2026. We
wish you and your council colleagues a very Happy Holiday season. Here are our concerns: 1. Water, flood and
environmental impacts. In her presentation before the Planning Commission, Sugar House Land Use and Zoning
Chair Judi Short raised significant concerns about water, flooding and environmental impacts that could be
exacerbated by the new hotel. • She referenced the earthen dam under the underground parking lot –which will
hold 180 cars. Construction near the dam could place additional burden on this environmental feature and
negatively affect groundwater or be compromised during a critical climate event, flood event or during an
exceptional rain event. • The “draw” or underpass below 1300 East that connects the west and east sides of Sugar
House would be a collector point for hundreds and thousands of gallons of water, in a heavy rain or extreme
climate event. The great flood of 2017 was so fierce, over five feet of water surged from Sugar House Park into
Sprague Library two miles away– damaging the library basement and costing $1.5-$2 million in repairs. More
flooding events in 2023 closed the park. Impacts from climate change are real. • As Judi Short indicated, there
have not been reviews of potential flooding, excess water or environmental impacts by Salt Lake Flood Control or
the State Dam Engineer. These are critical informational pieces. We urge the project be halted until they are
conducted and properly reviewed. Even the Public Utilities Department made a specific requirement in their report
that a Technical Drainage Study be conducted, and additional stormwater treatment management be added
because of the environmental sensitivity to Parley’s Creek and the Sugar House Park. • A D6 Community Council
leader skilled in city zoning codes and development made an important observation. If the MU3 zone is preserved
— which would prevent the hotel and the underground garage — this technically “solves” many of the
environmental issues the hotel might trigger because a 180- car underground garage does not “pencil” for
buildings constructed in the MU3 zone. 2. We dispute the developer’s claim that a rezone of the property to MU-8 –
allowing buildings up to 90 feet -- is the only pathway to “an economically viable project.” This is purely
speculative and somewhat self-serving. There are countless developments that could be placed on the property
within the existing MU-3 zone – which prioritizes neighborhood-scale commercial.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
12/23/2025 10:43 Janet Hemming 2/3 CONTINUED!! Concerns and
Opposition on the Sugar House
Park Hotel
There are dozens of commercial examples across the street or throughout the Sugar House business district.
Hotels are not permitted in a MU-3 zone, which the Council just designated for this property in July, when new
citywide codes were approved. It may be prudent to go back and re-analyze why MU-3 is the best zone for this
property. 3. Wasatch mountain views; Sugar House District Design Guidelines. Preservation of mountain views is
not only codified in the Sugar House District Design Guidelines but is one of the essential features of the new
Ballpark Next project just approved by the Salt Lake City Council on December 9, 2025. The Council voted
unanimously to ensure the Ballpark development would be “thoughtfully sculpted to ensure the majestic views of
the Wasatch Mountains remain preserved.” What is ethically correct for the Ballpark should also be ethically
correct for Sugar House. 4. Salt Lake and Sugar House do not have a hotel capacity problem. In late October, the
Rocky Mountain Lodging Report announced that Salt Lake’s motel and hotel occupancy rate for 2025 is 70.3% -- a
30% cushion. The developer claims this project would fill a “gap in the hotel market” yet two motels operate within
two-tenths of a mile from this location supplying 232 rooms. Adding this 145-room hotel would create 377 rooms
within yards of each other. Three more motels are in proximity on Foothill Drive representing another 640 rooms.
The bed count alone for these 5 existing properties is over 1,000. We believe no current “gap” exists. 5. Harmful
traffic impacts. The roadways that border the proposed hotel – 1300 East and 2100 South – are major arteries
travelled daily by tens of thousands of cars. UDOT statistics show more than 50,000 cars exit daily off I-80 onto
1300 East just below the hotel property. And traffic volumes along 2100 South are always about 25,000 daily. They
are critical access and egress points to a vast freeway system as well as to Salt Lake City. Both are currently rated
“F” for failure. • Placing a 145-room hotel at one of the busiest corners in the city will exacerbate traffic conditions
creating more delays and congestion. Even the Hales Engineering study acknowledged increased morning and
evening congestion. To alleviate the backup, engineers proposed an additional turn lane on 1300 East to relieve
traffic entering I-80 East. But that too is problematical since there are only 3 southbound lanes on 1300 East from
2100 South. At this very location, there is already a traffic “choke point” where cars are turning to enter I-80 – going
west or east from 1300 East. • Real-time traffic data that formed the basis of the Hales Engineering study was only
collected during one day in January 2025. Is this sufficient? January is the coldest month of the year and less
travelled than warmer-weather months. UDOT Director Carlos Braceras, in testimony before the State Legislative
Transportation Committee in late October, said UDOT needs 3 years of data to make the best evaluation of a
roadway. • Hotel guests may not be using their own personal vehicles– but they will still be arriving, departing and
moving around town or throughout the state in cars.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
12/23/2025 10:43 Janet Hemming 3/3 CONTINUED!!! Concerns and
Opposition on the Sugar House
Park Hotel
A business traveler rushing to meetings, a family or friend trying to connect with locals, a person in town for a
special concert or sporting event, or a vacationer hoping to hit the ski slopes, check out Temple Square or gaze at
the Great Salt Lake is unlikely to hop on a bicycle or take the bus to reach these destinations. We do not believe the
engineering study has taken this adequately into account and is primarily focused on hotel guests being dropped
off when they arrive or picked up when they leave. • The developers are pitching the new hotel as a restaurant
destination because of the rooftop eatery – so additional guests in vehicles would be arriving and leaving the hotel
during mealtimes. This is addressed in the study, but not adequately. 6. Preserving the “crown jewel” of Salt Lake
City’s parks. The most critical question before the city should be the preservation and future vitality of Sugar House
Park. It has been an oasis of relaxation, recreation, and retreat from the impacts of a burgeoning urban center with
explosive growth. During the public hearing on October 22, arguments were made that this corner lot at 2100
South and 1300 East was just an extension of the Sugar House Central business district. Sugar House Community
Council representatives in attendance said that had never been an acknowledged in their planned documents. In
other words, 1300 East had always been the business boundary. Advancement of the business district eastward
will bring additional pressure to the park. Rezoning will likely invite more upzones along the park’s northern border
where low-rise commercial enterprises and residential homes currently exist, opening the way for higher buildings
and more density. Salt Lake City has built more new housing in the past few years – tens of thousands of
apartments – than at any time since World War II. Open spaces like Sugar House Park represent an essential
antidote to the pressures of modern urbanity, offering balance and the serenity of nature. A reminder: On the
park’s east end, Highland High’s new remodel will center the school at the edge of 2100 South. 7. Sugar House
Park is a haven for migrating birds and an important causeway for Parley’s Creek. It is an important habitat for
geese, ducks, seagulls and other species. While Salt Lake is experiencing hotter and hotter summers, the Park is a
vital sanctuary and buffer against the corrosive "heat island" effect. If built, a hotel will only contribute to the park’s
environmental erosion – adding heat, auto exhaust, solar glare, artificial lights, and noise. Respectfully, Yalecrest
Neighborhood Council Board East Bench Community Council Board East Central Community Council Esther
Hunter, chair, and board members Debbie Fedor and Gwen Crist. Greater Avenues Community Council Jim
Jenkins, Land Use Committee
12/23/2025 10:47 Alex Churchward Closure of North Temple Good morning. I am a constituent of District 3 and a resident of the Avenues. Closures related to the renovation of
the LDS temple over the past several years have made it painful to access downtown and the West side of of Salt
Lake City. It's my understanding that the LDS Church has requested to close North Temple to accommodate their
upcoming temple open house events. I oppose the closure of a public street to benefit a privat entity. They already
took over Main Street, they don't need to inhibit any further public access for their private gain. Thank you, Alex
Churchward
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
12/30/2025 14:08 Tabitha Allred Parking issues near 900 West and
concerns with RMF-45 zoning
Hello Council Member Puy, My name is Tabitha Allred, and I am a resident of District 2 near REDACTED Glendale
neighborhood. I recently moved into a new construction townhome and wanted to share ongoing concerns about
parking and the proposed RMF-45 zoning. While I understand that I missed the public comment period for this
issue, I hope that my experience and concerns can help shape future enforcement and planning efforts. Our
townhome development was built with no on-site parking, and since moving in, street parking in front of and
around our complex has become a constant issue. Vehicles regularly park directly in front of our driveway
entrance, making it difficult and sometimes unsafe to enter and exit. This happens daily and has created
significant frustration for residents who are simply trying to access their homes through the only entrance/exit. I
am particularly concerned that the RMF-45 zoning allows dense residential projects to proceed without adequate
guest or visitor parking. While I understand and support the need for more housing, the lack of parking
requirements shifts the burden onto surrounding streets and existing residents. What we are experiencing feels
like a predictable outcome of these policies rather than an isolated problem. I would appreciate your support in
two areas. First, I would appreciate your help in requesting no-parking signage near our driveway to improve safety
and support enforcement. Second, I would like you to consider stronger parking mitigation requirements or
enforcement strategies as RMF-45 zoning moves forward, especially in areas without reliable transit access.
Additionally, better enforcement of existing parking regulations (campers on streets, abandoned vehicles, etc.) on
900 West would be appreciated. I would love the opportunity to discuss this further or provide additional details.
Thank you for your time and for representing our neighborhood. Sincerely, Tabitha Allred Resident of District 2
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
12/30/2025 14:45 Ashley Hinckley Concerns Over Wastewater
Project Near Homes
. Hello, I’m writing, as a current resident of Pierpont Avenue, because I am concerned about a major wastewater
infrastructure project moving forward in Poplar Grove with limited transparency and significant potential impacts
on the neighborhood. Salt Lake City Public Utilities is preparing to construct a wastewater biotower near Pierpont
Ave and 1000 W, directly adjacent to homes. The only public notice residents received was a single mailer sent
roughly a year ago, which provided very little detail about the project, its impacts, or its timeline. Since then, no
follow up information has been provided, and many neighbors remain unaware that construction is imminent. Why
this matters The proposed biotower raises several serious concerns for the surrounding community: • Odor and air
quality impacts from biological wastewater processing • Mechanical noise from pumps, blowers, and ventilation
systems • Visual and height impacts from a large industrial structure placed near homes • Increased traffic from
construction and ongoing maintenance • Property value concerns for nearby homeowners • Environmental justice
issues, given the long history of disproportionate infrastructure siting on the Westside Across the United States,
biotowers are almost always located inside full wastewater treatment plants, typically hundreds to thousands of
feet from the nearest residence. They are not normally placed in mixed residential neighborhoods. Placing a
biotower within roughly 100–150 feet of homes, as proposed here, would make this one of the closest sited
biotowers in the country. There is no known precedent for a biotower being placed this close to existing
residences, raising concerns that the project is experimental in terms of siting and deviates from industry standard
buffers. The Westside Master Plan—adopted by the city—explicitly calls for: • Reducing environmental burdens on
Westside neighborhoods • Preventing further concentration of industrial and utility uses • Improving buffers
between industrial and residential areas • Enhancing quality of life and livability • Ensuring equitable treatment of
Westside communities Placing a new wastewater biotower near homes directly contradicts these goals. Instead of
reducing impacts, the project adds another major utility facility to an area that already carries more than its share
of citywide infrastructure. What we are asking for: • Transparency about the project’s purpose, timeline, and
impacts • Updated and detailed communication to all affected households • A public meeting held in the
neighborhood • An explanation of how this project aligns with the Westside Master Plan • Consideration of
alternative locations or mitigation measures Sincerely, Ashley Poplar Grove Resident
1/6/2026 16:40 Rachel Schaefer Sugarhouse Tear Down To whom it may concern, Please, please do not tear down Sugar House Alley. This space is home to so many local
businesses and community members who have poured their time, creativity, and livelihoods into these shops. We
do not need more high-rise apartments—we need investment in the local communities that already exist and
make this area special. One of my favorite places is Sew Lake City, and I love walking through the alley and
supporting the small businesses there. Spaces like this create connection, creativity, and a sense of belonging that
cannot be replaced. Please keep these local businesses intact. I would truly love to discuss this further. Thank you
for your time, Rachel (She/her/hers) Rachel Schaefer Salt Lake City resident Social Work Student Advocate
(she/her/hers)
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/7/2026 11:59 Tyler Tuft Phone call to City Council Tenants at the duplex are creating a chaotic environment for constituent in 2294. Too many cars from the duplex
blocking the curb where constituents trash cans need to go, blocking driveways, etc. Constituent wants to know
what can be done with occupants in the duplex and what rules/guidelines can be established to create a better
environment not just for him, but other homeowners on the street. He made a call to Civil Enforcement, who
suggested they call CM Young.
1/7/2026 14:25 Ray Morrison Christmas Light Pollution Dear Council Member Dugan, You and I have spoken about light pollution in the past and I’m hoping that you might
initiate a council discussion with the aim toward developing legislation in its regard and specifically “Christmas”
lights. Wherein, more and more people are having permanent “Christmas” lights installed and, apparently, feeling
compelled to entertain themselves and the rest of us with obnoxious options from their phone apps such as
changing color, simulating movement and too often looking like a cheap motel, I believe it’s time for some codified
limitations. I completely understand not wanting to climb a ladder before and after the holidays to install and
remove such lights so I’m not against the permanent installation. However, too often I see them in use well after
the holiday season. My next-door neighbor, for example, uses her “Christmas” lights 365 days a year. A few other
neighbors use tasteful static lights at 2,700K but others too often have theirs set at 5,000K which is glaringly garish.
The Salt Lake City Clark Planetarium’s Utah Dark Skies link suggests turning off lights when not needed and using
shields to direct the light downward. https://www.saltlakecounty.gov/clark-planetarium/utah-dark-skies/ Salt
Lake City’s 21A.24.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS K states: Lighting: On site lighting shall be located, directed or
designed in such a manner as to contain and direct light and glare only to the property on which it is located. My
neighbor breaks this in spades and to me it’s no different than playing loud music that I would hear inside my
home. Park City has the following lighting ordinance which I applaud: Within Park City Limits (84060 zip code):
Seasonal lights that do not cause light to spill out unnecessarily or interfere with the reasonable use and
enjoyment of property are permitted from November 1 through March 1. Residential seasonal lights must be
turned off by 11:00 p.m. I see no reason for people to leave their “Christmas” lights on all night long. Young
children are hopefully in bed by 10:00 PM so I wonder whom these owners think is their target audience?Why the
need to simulate movement and or color change and why add to light pollution when most people are in bed? And
doesn’t the year-round use dimmish their impact of celebrating the holidays? Will every house, keeping up with the
Jones, use them eventually thereby making every neighborhood look like the Vegas Strip? I believe the following
limits, similar to the Park City ordinance, should be implemented for residential neighborhoods: · Off by 11:00 PM
(exception for Christmas Eve?) · No color morphing or movement simulation other than during the holiday season
November 1st though January 31st · Year-round static use no more than 3,000K (I’d prefer the warmer -- and more
tasteful -- 2,700K) Thanks for your attention and I’ll keep my fingers crossed. I’d also like to have a discussion
regarding residential speeding but that’s for another day! Cheers, Ray Morrison
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/8/2026 12:30 Daniel Punt Email Dear Councilmember Lopez Chavez, My name is Daniel Punt, and I am a homeowner and District 4 constituent
living at REDACTEd. I am writing to respectfully request your support in re-evaluating Salt Lake City’s prohibition on
artificial turf in front and corner side yards. I was surprised to recently learn that artificial turf is outright prohibited
under Salt Lake City Ordinance 21A.48.080.B.4, which bars artificial turf in any location where landscaping is
regulated by the City. I strongly support Salt Lake City’s environmental and neighborhood goals, particularly in
District 4, where we balance historic character, density, and sustainability. That said, given our high-desert
climate, persistent drought conditions, and the urgent need to conserve water to protect resources such as the
Great Salt Lake, I believe it is worth reassessing whether this policy still reflects today’s conservation priorities.
Outdoor irrigation represents a significant share of residential water use, and artificial turf—when used
thoughtfully and in limited applications—can materially reduce water demand. Many water-stressed cities in the
Southwest have moved toward incentive-based or flexible approaches rather than outright bans. In parts of the
Phoenix metropolitan area, for example, cities encourage homeowners to replace water-intensive lawns with low-
water alternatives through rebate programs, recognizing the need to adapt landscaping policies to modern water
realities. As my District 4 representative, I respectfully ask whether you would consider supporting a discussion or
review of this ordinance, including the possibility of pilot programs, conditional allowances, or other conservation-
oriented updates. I would also appreciate any guidance on what steps I, or other District 4 residents, can take to
help build thoughtful, community-supported momentum around potential policy change. Thank you for your time
and for your service to our district and city. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further. Sincerely,
Daniel Punt
1/9/2026 10:31 Kerry Lehtinen Cities have taken the
responsibility for libraries
Cities have taken the resonsibility for libraries I grew up in Ashtabula, Ohio (along with Urban Meyers). It had about
40,000 people and was the largest iron ore port in the world plus a huge industrial complex. It also had a classic
Carnegie Library where I spent a lot of time. Along with the libraries attached to the high schools. Kent State also
had a branch campus with a well equipped library. Both my mother and aunt were librarians. With the Anderson
Library being redone, please work to see that it receives maximum support and funding. A larger public room could
probably also be used by scout troops and other community groups. The City could also do a better job of
promoting the libraries they fund. For example, few people know that Anderson is also a drop off point for food
donations to the Veteran’s Food Bank. (Shame that we have to have food banks to support our troops or veterans.)
A library is a non-threatening way to bring citizens together in a neutral and safe place. It also might not hurt to
reserve some space for a neighborhood police sub station. (Read a book while you are waiting to get “booked.”)
PS/ I met Bob Hope a couple of times and he always said “Ashtabula” somewhere in his shows or movies. I asked
him why. He said he started as a boxer in Cleveland and dated a girl in Ashtabula. Liked the way the word sounded
and started to always use it. Is it time for you to run for re-election? Kerry
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/12/2026 12:34 Tessa SPERRY 1/2 No Camping Ordinance and
Crime Technology Issues
Dear Council Members, I have resided in Dan Dugan's district for decades and we developed, own and operate
283 apartment units across 3 projects in the heart of Sugar House (Sarah Young District) and at 315 West Pierpont
Ave downtown (Eva Lopez District). We have hundreds of residents that call these urban neighborhoods home,
and we continue to be very concerned about public safety and crime in these neighborhoods.. I am writing to urge
you to complete the drafting of the new ordinance regarding the definition of illegal "Camping" on public property
in such a way that the police can do their job and remove illegal campers. The current ordinance is ineffective
because it apparently requires that a structure be erected in order to be defined as "camping". There are many
"camping" situations where the parties have household items, blankets, sleeping bags, and everything else spread
around the park - essentially they have set up "camp" yet they are not technically considered as campers. This has
to change, because it is facilitating illegal camping in parks and public areas. If it "walks like a duck and quacks
like a duck, it's a duck. Please fix the definition of camping. Another part of the ordinance rewrite which is critical is
adding language that explicitly prohibits Recreational Vehicles "RVs" from "camping" by parking on the street. The
current ordinance is unworkable because it simply limits the time an RV can park on the street and the RV
Campers game the system by moving around the neighborhood for weeks and months effectively "camping" and
staying within the prescribed time limits yet not leaving the neighborhood. Essentially these campers have been
winning the game of cat and mouse with the police. You might say, oh well the RV campers are not doing any harm.
To the contrary they bring a very dangerous element to the neighborhood. Just a month ago, on 2150 S Lincoln in
Sugar House, a fatality resulted from an altercation over drugs that centered in an illegally parked RV that had been
a menace to this neighborhood for many months. During that time period we made over 10 incident reports with
photos to SLC parking enforcement. For the most part the parking enforcement would follow through and issue
notices, mark tires etc. and the RV camper would just move around the corner. This went on for months and
months with a number of incidents where the RV camper threatened us for taking photos of his illegal activity. We
believe he was operating a drug dealing business out of the RV for many months. It all came to an end when his
drug creditor shot him to death a month ago. This is of great concern to us as it occurred one half block from our
project with 200 residents that are close to harm's way. This simply has to stop and again, it is an ordinance
problem. Please clarify the ordinance such that RV Campers cannot use the streets of this city as an RV
Campground. Make no mistake - there is a high correlation between "homeless" RV Campers and violent and
deadly crime. It must stop and we must reclaim our neighborhoods.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/12/2026 12:34 Tessa SPERRY 2/2 CONTINUED!! No Camping
Ordinance and Crime Technology
Issues
Another area of concern is helping the police use technology to prevent and fight crime. A recent incident on
Pierpont avenue involved assailants firing 6 shots at police officers. They fled without the police being able to see
their license plates. There is technology called license plate readers that could have read the plates and a drone
could have followed the vehicle but the police don't have the equipment. I was very disappointed to see on the
news that the City Council voted to "defer" a $200,000 federal grant for license plate readers that would have put
this equipment in the police's hands to save lives in our city. The "deferral" appeared to be based on some
misguided politically correct views about immigration enforcement using the plate readers. Very misguided and
sad that the council would put public safety as a low priority to political considerations. In summary, please
rewrite the No Camping ordinance to broaden the definition of camping and to explicitly include RV Campers in
the prohibition. Please fund technology equipment that will enable the police to prevent and fight crime, and
please restore Public Safety as the top priority of this city. John Gardiner
1/13/2026 13:17 James Miska Comments for City Council
before Jan 13th meeting
To the City Council, My name is James Miska, and I am a local resident, homeowner, and small business owner in
the tourism industry, here in Salt Lake City. I am writing because I want you all on City Council to take actions and
engage in whatever you can do to legally restrict and limit action and presence by the federal enforcement agency
known as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and any of its agents or deputies, in Salt Lake City. These
actions include: • passing a unified resolution calling for the abolition of ICE • publicly making a unified statement
to say they are not welcome in Salt Lake City • requiring judicial warrants for any federal agency to get to use city
resources. This includes prohibiting use any city funding, any city staff including police, and any city facilities or
property for their use, unless demanded by judicial warrant. • Fund a community advisory committee, or multiple
community advisory committees, to monitor civilian rights • Provide your citizenry with consistent, accurate
educational resources as to how they can help keep ICE out of our communities as well. • Salt Lake City Council
and the Mayor of Salt Lake City can join with its citizens and civilians to help keep our city safer. It is disgustingly
evident that ICE nor its agents care a shred about keeping any of us safe, and we do not want their violent presence
active within our City. Thank you, James Miska
1/13/2026 13:18 Scott Narus Council Formal Meeting, Jan 13,
2026, Agenda Item 6: Ordinance:
Consolidated Fee Schedule
Corrections - Public Utilities
Dear Council Members, I am attaching a document summarizing our ongoing concerns with the new fire water line
rates the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) has requested for FY26 and the ordinance proposal to "correct" the
Consolidated Fee Schedule resulting from this. This document provides more detail to the public comments I plan
to provide at the January 13th Council Formal Meeting. I am also attaching a letter we previously sent to DPU (and
copied to our Council representative, Dan Dugan) detailing our concerns with the new fire water line fees. There is
more correspondence we have had with DPU and Council members on this topic and we would be happy to share
this with you if desired. Thank you. Scott Narus
1/13/2026 20:16 Kelton Baker ICE ICE has terrorized all of our streets and communities Ice is out
1/13/2026 20:19 Brianna Puga ICE My name is Brianna and live in the 84101, I am demanding the City Council to protect are community by refusing
voluntary cooperation with ICE
1/13/2026 20:23 Kelton Baker ICE I want to make myself heard as a constituent of District 4, that ICE must be prohibited in SLC and the US . Our
neighbors deserve to feel and be safe. Remember the names of Renee Good, Keith Porter and the rest of those
murdered by ICE in 2025-26
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
1/13/2026 20:31 Kelton Baker ICE I'm here to advocate for all of the latinos and all the immigrants that are being brutalized and mistreated. My mom
crossed the boarder when she was to come here and give me a better life. She has done nothing but work her ass
of in this country. She deserves to be here just as much as anybody else. America was built on the backs of
immigrants America is not being made safer by tearing families apart. Pepper spraying young children in the face
and murdering innocent civilians and killing our culture our lively hood our freedom an our heritage and everything
that Americans once claimed to stand for.
1/13/2026 20:35 Kelton Baker ICE We are dealing with a massive violation of human rights. These people being detained are hard working individuals
and they deserve to exist in this place the same as you and I. They provide our our communities with diversity
culture and kindness. ICE is invading schools, workplaces, and other community centers. They are disregarding
cause and due process to enact a regiment that is totalitarianistic and brutal. Their cause is not just and they are
not acting upon the freedom that every person legal or not deserves.
1/13/2026 20:39 Kelton Baker ICE ICE has terrorized this community and serves only to scare everyone. I have seen arrests done and have seen ICE
intimidate both citizens and non citizens life. After the murder of Renee Good, it is impossible to feel safe
surrounded by masked men who can kill us and just claim self defense, facing no consequences even before Rene
30+ people have died in ICE custody. Let SLC be oin the right side of history and refuse to cooperate with ICE.
1/13/2026 20:43 Kelton Baker Mosquito abatement I am concerned about the mosquito abatement district. Every year, my neighborhood in Rose Park is overwhelmed
by mosquitoes we spend hundreds of dollars every year, personally trying to diminish the problem it feels like we
are fighting the battle alone. Is mosquito abatement actually doing anything in our neighborhood?
1/13/2026 20:46 Anonymous Constituent ICE We write on behalf of those affected by the actions of ICE in our local and national communities. We ask our Salt
Lake City Council to take action to protect these communities by not voluntarily complying with ICE specifically we
ask the council to ensure that none of our City's funding of workforce are used for federal immigration
enforcement. Our money should be used to protect and uplift our people not persecute them unjustly.
1/13/2026 20:50 Anonymous Constituent ICE It has become clear that cooperation with ICE is a critical matter of public safety for all residents. I ask that our
City government take all legal measures possible to protect the people it serves, including but not limited to:
requiring judicial warrants for all city property, partner with community immigrant rights organizations to keep the
public safe and informed, disallow use of any City funds, resources or personnel.
1/13/2026 20:57 Anonymous Constituent ICE Your job is to be a civil servant. To represent and also lead upholding the oppressive system will only violate that
duty and further disconnect you from your humanity. Either way your reckoning with the people is coming. Choose
wisely