Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11/25/2025 - Work Session - Meeting Materials
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WORK SESSION November 25, 2025 Tuesday 2:00 PM Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas. Council Work Room 451 South State Street, Room 326 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com 7:00 pm Formal Meeting Room 315 (See separate agenda) Welcome and public meeting rules In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the City & County Building through the main east entrance. The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or availability of speakers. The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork. Generated: 12:01:29 Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change. Work Session Items 1.Resolution: 2025 Water Conservation Plan ~ 2:00 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution that would adopt the 2025 Water Conservation Plan. The updated plan was developed in accordance with the state’s Conservation Plan Act, as well as other state, federal, and industrial guidelines. It includes estimates of water supply and demand, analysis of historical water use, and establishes 5-, 10- and 40-year water conservation goals. The plan also outlines programs to achieve these goals and details a communications and outreach strategy to support implementation. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 25, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 18, 2025 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 9, 2025 2.Informational: Public Art Program Maintenance and Conservation Report for Fiscal Year 2025-26 ~ 2:20 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about the Public Art Program Maintenance and Conservation Report for Fiscal Year 2025-26 and the Maintenance and Conservation Artwork Projections. The Public Art Program recommends to the Finance Department that 20% of the Fiscal Year 2025-26 CIP Percent-for-Art funds ($33,475) be deposited to the Maintenance Fund based on the information contained in the report. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 25, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 3.Informational: Climate Forward SLC Plan Update ~ 2:40 p.m. 25 min. The Council will receive a briefing from the Department of Sustainability about the Climate Forward SLC Plan, an update to Salt Lake City’s climate strategy. The department is in the early stages of developing the plan and is seeking feedback from the Council. Formal adoption of the plan is anticipated in 2026. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 25, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 4.Ordinance: Consolidated Fee Schedule Corrections Follow- Up ~ 3:05 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about an ordinance amending the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS). During the budget process for fiscal year 2025-26, the CFS was updated with several changes. After the schedule was approved and adopted by the Council, Departments noticed errors and omissions that needed to be corrected. The changes include adding the Title "Fire Lines" and the Description "Per Inch" to one of the rate tables in the CFS for Public Utilities. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 16, 2025, Tuesday, October 14, 2025, and Tuesday, November 25, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 5.Tentative Break ~ 3:25 p.m. 20 min. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Set Public Hearing Date - Hold hearing to accept public comment - TENTATIVE Council Action - 6.Informational: West-East Connections Study, Phase One Update ~ 3:45 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing on Phase one of the SLC West-East Connections Study, which was awarded funding through the US DOT Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program. The study (now known as WE Connect) is designed to improve west-east connectivity across the Interstate 15/railroad track divide by evaluating transport needs and identifying potential solutions for driving. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 25, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 7.General Obligation Bond for Parks, Trails, and Open Space – First Issuance Update and Second Issuance Funding Request Follow-Up ~ 4:15 p.m. 45 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing on projects funded by the first issuance of the General Obligation Bond for Parks, Trails, and Open Space (Series 2022), and consider the Administration’s request to approve the second issuance (Series 2026). The second issuance would fund between $26 million and $49 million in new projects, including Glendale Park construction, and new investments in other parks, trails, and open space in each Council district. These funds would also update salary amounts from early 2023 for bond-specific personnel to reflect inflation since that time. Voters authorized a bond of up to $85 million in 2022 to be dedicated to acquiring, improving, renovating, and upgrading parks, trails, open space, and related amenities. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 13, 2025 and Tuesday, November 25, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 8.Informational: Review of 2026 Annual Meeting Calendar ~ 5:00 p.m. 15 min. The Council will review the draft 2026 Annual Meeting calendar for the City Council, Community Reinvestment Agency, and Board of Canvassers. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 25, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 9.Board Appointment: Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board – Parviz Faiz ~ 5:15 p.m. 5 min. The Council will interview Parviz Faiz, resident of District 3, prior to considering appointment to the Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board for a term ending June 5, 2028. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, November 25, 2025 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 25, 2025 Standing Items 10.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair - - Report of Chair and Vice Chair. 11.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items. 12.Tentative Closed Session - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual. b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining. c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation. d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration, or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms. e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration, or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms. (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale, and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale. f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems. g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 20, 2025, the undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. KEITH REYNOLDS SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations of options discussed. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slc.gov, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Austin Kimmel DATE:November 25, 2025 RE: RESOLUTION: 2025 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE Keep on track to meet long-term water supply needs. Facilitate efforts to increase resource and system resilience in the face of identified risks, including climate change. Encourage the continued wise use of water, an important limited resource; and Be consistent with conservation goals established by the State, Central Utah Project, Alliance for Water Efficiency, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Item Schedule: Page | 2 During its September meeting, the Public Utilities Advisory Committee (PUAC) reviewed and voted to recommend the plan to the Council for adoption. Goal of the briefing: The Council will learn about the Department of Public Utilities’ 2025 Water Conservation Plan before holding a public hearing and voting on approval of the plan. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Equity and Accessibility of Conservation Programs: The Council may wish to ask the department how conservation programs could be tailored to economically disadvantaged residents, including renters who may have less control over a property owner's outdoor water use. Additionally, the Council could request to learn more about the department's plans to engage with these residents regarding the conservation resources available to them. 2. Ordinance Addressing Squandered Water: The Council may wish to ask the department to elaborate on the mentioned Squandered Water Ordinance, including what constitutes "egregious water waste" and what penalties would be considered in the creation of this ordinance. 3. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI): The Council may wish to request an update from the department, including the status and timeline, regarding its efforts to replace all water meters with AMI. 4. City Property Water Efficiency: Regarding the Citywide Water Efficiency Study, the Council may wish to inquire about the administration's plans for the 350,000 square feet of unutilized turf at City properties that it has identified. The Council could ask if any of the turf might be removed or converted, and whether parks or other public spaces would be impacted. 5. Regional Comparison of Conservation Goals: Chapter 3 of the plan outlines several conservation goals. The Council could ask how these goals compare to other cities in Utah and the region, including whether those goals are considered aggressive or conservative by comparison. CHAPTER 1: SUPPLY AND DEMAND Page | 3 Recommendations: Based on supply and demand, four key recommendations are identified in the Supply and Demand Chapter: 1. Increase Efforts in Water Conservation Programming, 2. Protect and Manage Water Supply, 3. Monitor Effects of Climate Change, and 4. Review and Reevaluate Conservation Goals CHAPTER 2: HISTORICAL WATER USE The plan summarizes water use in Salt Lake City’s service area by documenting historical water use based on total water sales, use by classification and sub-classification, gallons per capita, system losses, and the impacts of historical conservation efforts. Salt Lake City’s water service area encompasses the city itself and portions of surrounding communities, including Millcreek, Holladay, Cottonwood Heights, and other areas within Salt Lake County. Per Capita Water Use: Although not a perfect measurement, Per Capita Water Use (GPD) is the primary metric the State of Utah uses to measure water use and conservation progress. The chart below illustrates the per capita water sales for the service area over the past 18 years. Page | 4 Use by Classification: To analyze water patterns, the plan categorizes customers into classifications such as residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional. It further categorizes customers into sub-classifications, such as single residence, apartment, hospital, etc. At the time the analysis was conducted in 2024, a total of 84,182 connections existed across all classifications within the Salt Lake City water service area. Key Historical Water Use Findings: Page | 6 Approximately 54% of water is used outdoors across all classifications, and about 46% is used indoors. Residential customers account for about half of all outdoor use and one-third of all indoor use. Commercial customers account for about half of all indoor use and one-third of all outdoor use. Almost 80% of institutional water use occurs outdoors. The single-family residence sub-classification uses more water both indoors and outdoors than any other sub-classification, indicating that the majority of conservation savings may need to focus on this group. Water loss (the difference between water produced and authorized consumption) within the system is estimated to be between 10 and 12% annually. Conservation Progress The plan illustrates that the community has made significant progress in improving efficiencies and water conservation in the last two decades, since 2000, when detailed analysis of water use patterns became available. Moreover, total water demand has decreased by 24% and peak demand has decreased by 26% since the 2000 base year. The sustained reduction in water use during this period is estimated to result in cumulative cost savings of approximately $420 million. CHAPTER 3: CONSERVATION GOALS The plan defines measurable objectives necessary to meet the City’s long-term water supply needs, increase resource and system resilience, and encourage wise water use, while aligning with state and contractual requirements. This chapter includes evaluations of previously established goals, as well as newly established conservation goals based on an analysis of supply, demand, and historical water use. The plan recognizes that reductions in water use may result from several factors beyond wise water use habits: For example, increases in density (and the corresponding decrease in average lot size) may significantly decrease per capita outdoor water use, even if water use patterns do not otherwise change. Economic growth and socio-economic conditions, improvements in fixture and appliance efficiency, and climate change are examples of other factors that may, for better or worse, affect demand. New Conservation Goals This chapter presents the specific water use reduction targets for each customer use category. Those include: 1. Indoor Residential Use: Water use is targeted to be reduced to 49 GPCD (gallons per capita per day), 2. Outdoor Use: Outdoor water use is targeted to be reduced to an average irrigation application rate of 22.8 inches 3. CII Indoor Use: Continue evaluating water use for Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII) customers to determine water use reduction goals. Page | 6 CHAPTER 4: CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, PRACTICES, AND MEASURES Chapter four provides a framework and specific initiatives, or programs as they’re referenced in the report, that Public Utilities will implement to achieve its short- and long-term water conservation goals. It serves as the action plan built upon the preceding chapters. Those programs include: Outreach Program, Economic Program, Utility Program, Law & Policy Program, and Research & Metrics Program. Outreach: This program focuses on education, information, and community engagement to encourage the adoption of practices, behaviors, and technologies to reduce water consumption. This includes “soft programs” to encourage water conservation through initiatives such as messaging campaigns, learning opportunities, and the Water Check program, which helps property owners improve irrigation efficiency. Economic: This program focuses on water pricing, rebates, and other financial incentives to motivate conservation. This may include financial incentives for technologies like rain sensors or low-flow fixtures. It could also include audits of Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII) customers. Utility: This program focuses on integrating best practices into daily utility functions, infrastructure maintenance, and capital programs to increase water efficiency. This includes continuing Public Utilities’ work to replace all water meters with Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) to report water use more accurately. It also includes implementing the Citywide Water Efficiency Study recommendations to address unutilized turf and leaking HVAC systems at City-owned properties. Page | 7 Law & Policy: This program seeks to codify best practices and regulate water waste. As an example, this program aims to develop a Squandered Water Ordinance to prohibit egregious water waste, among other ordinances and policies it seeks to evaluate. CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATION PLAN ACRONYMS AMI – Advanced Metering Infrastructure CII – Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (customers) COP – Communications and Outreach Plan GPCD – Gallons Per Capita Per Day GPD – Gallons Per Day HVAC – Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning PUAC – Public Utilities Advisory Committee 2025 Water Conservation Plan Update Laura Briefer, Director Stephanie Duer, Water Conservation Manager November 25, 2025 As a Public Water Supplier (PWS) the City is required to prepare a Water Conservation Plan (Plan) (Utah Code 73-10-32). It should include: •Supply and demand projections •Historical use •Conservation goals •Program descriptions •Outreach and media plan Other requirements: •A draft is submitted to the State Division of Water Resources •Plan updates are required every five years Utah State Code 73.10.32: Water Conservation Plan What’s in our Plan: Supply and Demand: Estimates of projected future water supply and water demand Historical Use: Analysis of past water use within various customer classifications Conservation Goals: 5, 10, and 40-year goals for water conservation Conservation Programs: Water conservation program practices to help achieve short and long- term water conservation goals Communications and Outreach: Communication plan to guide the public process before and after plan adoption Keep us on track to not exceed long-term water supply and understand demand, climate, and growth impacts. Analyze water use patterns through a variety of lenses to better understand opportunities and obstacles in achieving conservation goals Identify conservation goals across customer classifications that are consistent with our supply projections and other goals established by the State, Central Utah Project, and others Identify, design, implement, and measure strategies that help achieve the goals outlined in the plan Enhance communication and outreach within the community on water conservation topics The 2025 Water Conservation Plan:The Plan Goals: Supply and Demand •Since 2000, total demand has reduced by 23.5% •Since 2000, Peak Day Demand has reduced from 216 MG to 153 MG; a reduction of 30% •21,164 Acre-Feet (AF) of water saved per year, averaged over 24 years •Future supply is estimated to be 126,120 AF •Future demand (at current levels of conservation) estimated to be 131,900 AF by 2026 •Water reduction needs to increase by an average of 20,780 AF per year by 2060 Supply and Demand These are the classifications and subclassifications we use to collect and analyze water use for water conservation planning purposes. By organizing water users by shared characteristics, we can better understand how groups need and use water and how to help them achieve the necessary water use reductions established in the plan. Historical Use Measure Year 2000 Year 2024 Change Total Water Sales 89,138 AF 77,901 AF ↓ 13% Total GPDC 285 gal 179 gal ↓ 37% Residential GPDC 174 gal 151 gal ↓ 13% Peak Day Demand 216 mil gal 153 mil gal ↓ 30% GPD peak day 693 gal 404 gal ↓ 42% Conservation Goals Commercial (select) Residential (SF to 4plx) Institutional Indoors 722 19 196 Outdoors 281 15 685 Total 1003 36 881 Total % reduction goal per connection 7.5%7.8%7.7% Water Use Reduction Goals in gallons per day Conservation Programs •Landscape transformations •SMART irrigation controllers •Water Check and WaterMAPS •SLC TurfTrade and rain barrels •CII indoor audits •Education and outreach •CII water use disaggregation analysis •Conservation impacts on rates study •AWWA M36 Water Loss assessment Program Highlights SALT LAKE CITY Outreach and Communications •Social media platforms •Conservation page updates •5-year strategic plan for communications: •Rebate and grant opportunities •Key programs •Education opportunities •Public engagement Conservation Public Outreach results •Virtual Town Hall meeting •Two in-person Open Houses (one in SLC, one in Millcreek) •Dedicated website: •Draft plan •Engagement opportunities •Online survey (150+ participants): •How and why people are conserving •Program participation and engagement •Understanding and acceptance of conservation goals •Impediments to participation •Awareness of conservation programs and rebates THANK YOU Stephanie Duer Water Conservation Manager Department of Public Utilities (o) 801.483.6860 (c) 385.419.6670 stephanie.duer@slc.gov SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 11/06/2025 Date Sent to Council: 11/07/2025 From: Department * Public Utilities Employee Name: Briefer, Laura E-mail Laura.Briefer@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 11/06/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 11/07/2025 Subject: 2025 Water Conservation Plan Update Additional Staff Contact: Stephanie Duer, stephanie.duer@slc.gov Presenters/Staff Table Laura Briefer, laura.briefer@slc.govStephanie Duer, stephanie.duer@slc.govKeith Larson, klarson@bowencollins.com Document Type Resolution Budget Impact? Yes No Budget Impact: 671,000 (allocated for Conservation Program FY 2025-2026 Recommendation: It is recommended to adopt the 2025 Water Conservation Plan Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process Over the past year as work was being conducted to develop this Plan, conservation staff met with a variety of stakeholders, including internal and external stakeholders, landscape professionals, experts in commercial and industrial water use, and academicians. Website and social media materials were developed and shared with City Council, community councils, and extensive contact lists provided by conservation and sustainability staff. Public meetings included a virtual town hall meeting held in September, followed by two open houses. An online survey was also posted on the conservation plan webpage (address below), with 147 respondents. In early July, a draft of the conservation plan was submitted for review to the State of Utah Department of Natural Resources/Division of Water Resources (DWRe), as per Utah State Code 73-10-32 (Water Conservation Plan Required). The DWRe rated the plan as excellent, stating, “the plan is well-written, easy to understand, and full of valuable information. The tables, graphs, and visuals are especially well done—clear and effective.” Stakeholder and public responses to the plan have been positive, with community members and stakeholders expressing support for conservation in general, and with an understanding of, and support for these new goals. Several stakeholders are developing 5-year Conservation Action Plans, including SLC Sustainability, SLC Parks, Salt Lake County, and others. Several businesses that participated in the on-line survey also have expressed interest in developing Conservation Action Plans and are currently working with conservation sta ff. The Public Utilities Advisory Committee reviewed the Plan and voted to recommend the Plan to the Mayor and Council for adoption during its meeting on September 18, 2025. This page has intentionally been left blank To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Date: November 4, 2025 From: Laura Briefer, Director, Public Utilities Department: Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities SUBJECT: 2025 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN ADOPTION Document Type: Resolution Budget Impact: Impact to Water Fund/Water Conservation Budget FY 2025/26 $671,000 (allocated). Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council adopt the 2025 Water Conservation Plan PUBLIC PROCESS Over the past year as work was being conducted to develop this Plan, conservation staff met with a variety of stakeholders, including internal and external stakeholders, landscape professionals, experts in commercial and industrial water use, and academicians. Website and social media materials were developed and shared with City Council, community councils, and extensive contact lists provided by conservation and sustainability staff. Public meetings included a virtual town hall meeting held in September, followed by two open houses. An online survey was also posted on the conservation plan webpage (address below), with 147 respondents. In early July, a draft of the conservation plan was submitted for review to the State of Utah Department of Natural Resources/Division of Water Resources (DWRe), as per Utah State Code 73-10-32 (Water Conservation Plan Required). The DWRe rated the plan as excellent, stating, “the plan is well-written, easy to understand, and full of valuable information. The tables, graphs, and visuals are especially well done—clear and effective.” Stakeholder and public responses to the plan have been positive, with community members and stakeholders expressing support for conservation in general, and with an understanding of, and support for these new goals. Several stakeholders are developing 5-year Conservation Action Plans, including SLC Sustainability, SLC Parks, Salt Lake County, and others. Several businesses that participated in the on-line survey also have expressed interest in developing Conservation Action Plans and are currently working with conservation staff. The Public Utilities Advisory Committee reviewed the Plan and voted to recommend the Plan to the Mayor and Council for adoption during its meeting on September 18, 2025. BACKGROUND The Department of Public Utilities has completed an update of Salt Lake City’s Water Conservation Plan (Plan). Working with Bowen Collins & Associates, Inc., Public Utilities has prepared this Plan in accordance with Utah State Code 73-10-31 (Conservation Plan Act), and pursuant to industry best practices and other state and regional guidelines. Since the State of Utah first adopted the Conservation Plan Act, Public Utilities has developed conservation plans every five years for adoption by the City; this Plan represents the fifth update of the conservation plan first submitted in 1999. The Conservation Plan Act requires that all water providers with more than 5,000 water connections submit to the Utah State Department of Natural Resources/Division of Water Resources (DWRe) a conservation plan every five years. The Conservation Plan Act contains guidelines for plan development, as well as requirements of specific inclusions in conservation plans. These include: • Water supply • Historical water demand • Water conservation goals • Conservation program information • Adoption or approval by water providers governing body This Plan has been developed in accordance with the State’s Conservation Plan Act, as well as guidelines in the American Water Works Association Manual 52: Water Conservation Programs; US-EPA Water Conservation Plan Guidelines; Alliance for Water Efficiency Assessments of Conservation Programing; and the State of Utah’s Governor’s Office Recommended State Water Strategy. The Plan contains five chapters and appendices, summarized below. Chapter 1: Supply and Demand Chapter 1 summarizes the City’s overall water supply and demand for its service area through the year 2060, incorporating future growth projections and various water resource vulnerabilities and resiliency considerations, such as climate change. Analysis shows the following actions must be taken by the City: (1) additional water conservation is needed to ensure water supplies meet water demand needs in both short and long term time scales; (2) the City must continue to protect and manage its current and future water supplies; (3) the effects of climate change must continue to be studied, monitored, and planned for; and (4) expand an already robust conservation program by improving our understanding of water use patterns by specific customer groups, or classifications. Chapter 2: Historical Water Use Chapter 2 summarizes how water is used in Salt Lake City’s service area. Salt Lake City’s water service area includes Salt Lake City and portions of other communities within Salt Lake County, including Millcreek, Holladay, Cottonwood Heights, and other areas. An accounting of historical water use by year, by water user classification, and by season is provided. The data helps inform areas of programmatic prioritization to achieve conservation goals. The data also shows significant conservation progress to date has been made by our community since the base year 2000, with a reduction in total water demand of nearly 24 percent, a reduction in peak demand of 26 percent, and an average annual water reduction of over 21,000 acre- feet per year. Chapter 3: Conservation Goals Water use reduction goals (also referred to as water conservation goals) are evaluated regularly to ensure relevance to current and future water supplies, State Regional goals, and contractual goals related to our use of Central Utah Project water Use within the service area continues to trend below both state, regional, and contractual goals. Also presented in this chapter are new goals based on the analysis of supply, demand, and historical water use. New goal metrics include reducing gallons per capita per day (GPCD) to 146 gpcd by 2060; a reduction of 18.7 per cent. The goals include additional metrics regarding indoor and outdoor water use reductions, quantified in GPCD and in acre-feet, by subcategories within residential, commercial, and institutional water users. Conservation goals also include shorter term water conservation goals (5 and 10 years). Summary tables of these goals are shown below. Chapter 4: Conservation Programs, Practices, and Measures Chapter 4 outlines several programmatic elements of the City’s water conservation work. These include 1) Outreach; 2) Economic; 3) Utility; 4) Law and Policy; and 5) Research and Metrics. Community engagement, water rate structure, utility operations, ordinances, and good analytics are examples of practices within eac h of these programmatic elements. The City has incorporated many of these practices into its water conservation program. The Plan describes each programmatic element along with implementation requirements where available, such as funding, partnerships or collaborations, metrics and measures, as well as budgetary needs. Chapter 5: Public Outreach and Communication Chapter 5 of the Plan describes the public outreach for the conservation plan process, as well as goals and objectives for ongoing public engagement to incorporate public feedback regarding the Plan and achieve short- and long-term water conservation goals. Public comments and survey results indicate both an understanding and acceptance of the need to reduce water use, with most respondents indicating support for continued watershed and water source protection, environmental stewardship, and efforts to protect Great Salt Lake. Many also acknowledged that managing costs was a factor in their water use reduction behaviors. However, many survey respondents also indicated an unawareness of existing programs such as landscape transformation rebates, smart irrigation controller toilet rebates, and programs such as Water Check and WaterMAPS™. This knowledge gap reinforces the development of a short- and long-term strategic communications plan for conservation to enhance and build on community knowledge of conservation behaviors as well as program support. Appendices: The Plan appendices include helpful information for the public as well as the regulatory agencies reviewing the Plan. These include: • SLCDPU Service Area Map • State Division of Water Resources 2018 Water Conservation Plan Checklist • ANSI/AWWA G480 Water Conservation Program Operation and Management Standard Checklist • Water Conservation Budget, FY 2025/26 • Water Shortage Contingency Planning Ordinance and Response Summary • Public Utility Advisory Community Minutes/Water Conservation Plan Discussion and Recommendation • AWWA M36 Water Loss Audit report summary • Summary report on impacts of conservation on water rates • Salt Lake City Council Transmittal, Minutes, and Resolution • Links and References • Glossary of Terms, Abbreviations, and Acronyms WEBPAGE: A webpage, located at https://www.slc.gov/utilities/conservation/water-conservation-plan-2025/ hosts the following content: • Conservation Plan draft • Link to Townhall meeting • Plan presentation in pdf format • Link to online survey • Frequently Asked Questions This page has intentionally been left blank RESOLUTION NO. OF 2025 (2025 Water Conservation Plan) A resolution adopting the 2025 Water Conservation Plan, as required by Section 73-10-32 of the Utah Code. WHEREAS, Section 73-10-32 of the Utah Code requires that water conservancy districts and retail water providers adopt water conservation plans and update such plans no less frequently than every five years; and WHEREAS, consistent with Section 73-10-32(3) of the Utah Code, the City Council provided notice and held a public hearing to receive community input on the proposed 2025 Water Conservation Plan, and has considered such input in determining that adoption of the Plan is in the best interest of the City; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City recognizes that water conservation is essential to sustaining the City’s long-term water supply reliability, protecting the Great Salt Lake ecosystem, and ensuring that future generations benefit from responsible and equitable water management; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City supports the efforts to reduce water demand and improve water efficiency that have occurred and were outlined in previously adopted water conservation plans; and WHEREAS, the 2025 Water Conservation Plan has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 73-10-32 of the Utah Code; and WHEREAS, the 2025 Water Conservation Plan identifies updated strategies and measurable objectives for reducing per-capita water demand, increasing water-use efficiency, and expanding public outreach and education; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City is concerned about future efforts for further water conservation and has determined that it would be in the best interest of the community to adopt the 2025 Water Conservation Plan. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City that: 1. The City Council hereby adopts the 2025 Water Conservation Plan, attached hereto as Attachment A, as Salt Lake City’s plan for water conservation, demand management, and water-use efficiency. 2. The Department of Public Utilities is directed to implement the goals, objectives, and actions outlined in the 2025 Water Conservation Plan. 3. The City Council encourages continued collaboration with regional, state, and federal partners to secure funding, technical assistance, and community participation in achieving the Plan’s conservation objectives. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage and approval. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2025. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: _ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Resolution Adopting 2025 Water Conservation Plan 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: 11 /04/2025 By: /s/ Carly Castle Courtney Lords, Senior City Attorney This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Landscape Efficiencies Commercial Programs Education and Outreach Demonstration Gardens Environmental Stewardship Landscape Transformations Landscape Efficiencies Commercial Programs Education and Outreach Demonstration Gardens Environmental Stewardship Landscape Transformations DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page PS-1 PLAN SUMMARY DRAFT PLAN SUMMARY I NTRODUCTION Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (Department) has completed an update of its water conservation plan (Plan). Working with Bowen Collins & Associates, Inc., the Department has prepared this Plan in accordance with the State of Utah Conservation Plan Act 73-10-32, as well as under guidelines outlined in the American Water Works Association Manual M52: Water Conservation Programs and the State’s Regional Conservation Goals. At its simplest, water conservation is the effort of learning to use less water while maintaining quality-of-life standards. There are many reasons to conserve water, and for a community, it makes sense to plan that conservation effort. Planning helps quantify water supply and assess historical demand so that conservation goals may be established that help us live within and sustain limited water resources. Planning helps ensure that water conservation programs are adequate to achieve established goals. Planning helps communicate complex issues that affect short- and long-term conservation efforts, such as climate change and growth. And finally, conservation planning can convey the need to conserve, identify tools and resources available to the community for use in their conservation efforts, and build a shared water steward ethic that motivates us all to achieve the desired, and necessary, conservation goals. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page PS-2 PLAN SUMMARY SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page PS-3 PLAN SUMMARY SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT CHAPTER ONE: SUPPLY AND DEMAND 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITIES SERVICE AREA........................................... 1-2 1.2 DEMANDS ON THE WATER SYSTEM ........................................................... 1-2 1.3 SLCDPU WATER SUPPLY ....................................................................... 1-4 1.3.1 Existing Sources...................................................................................... 1-5 1.3.2 Future Sources ....................................................................................... 1-5 1.3.3 Total Annual Water Supply .................................................................... 1-6 1.4 WATER SYSTEM RISK ............................................................................ 1-7 1.5 FUTURE ANNUAL PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS COMPARED TO FUTURE DEMAND 1-9 1.6 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 1-10 CHAPTER TWO: HISTORICAL WATER USE 2.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 TOTAL WATER USE ............................................................................... 2-2 2.2 PER CAPITA USE .................................................................................. 2-3 2.3 SYSTEM LOSSES ................................................................................... 2-4 2.4 USE BY CLASSIFICATION AND SUB-CLASSIFICATION ........................................ 2-5 2.5 INDOOR AND OUTDOOR WATER USE ........................................................ 2-7 2.6 CONSERVATION PROGRESS TO DATE ....................................................... 2-12 CHAPTER THREE: CONSERVATION GOALS 3.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 CONSERVATION GOALS .......................................................................... 3-2 3.1.1 Governor’s 2001 Statewide Water Conservation Goal .......................... 3-2 3.1.2 Central Utah Project Conservation Agreement (Utah Lake System Conservation Goals) ........................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.3 Recommended State Water Strategy, July 2017 ................................... 3-2 3.1.4 Utah’s Regional M&I Water Conservation Goals, November 2019 And June 2025 ........................................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.5 Water Conservation And Great Salt Lake............................................... 3-4 3.1.6 Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan Conservation Goals ............................................................................................................... 3-4 3.1.7 Comparison Of Conservation Goals ....................................................... 3-4 3.2 DETAILS OF SLCDPU CONSERVATION GOALS .............................................. 3-5 3.2.1 Overall Conservation Goal ..................................................................... 3-5 3.2.2 Conservation Goal by Customer Classification .......................................3-5 3.2.3 Conservation Goals By Sub-Classification ...............................................3-9 3.2.4 Five- And Ten-Year Conservation Goals ...............................................3-13 3.2.5 Additional Conservation Potential For Great Salt Lake ........................3-14 CHAPTER FOUR: CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, PRACTICES, AND MEASURES 4.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 CONSERVATION PLANNING PROCESS ........................................................ 4-2 4.1.1 Criteria ....................................................................................................4-2 4.1.2 Evaluation ...............................................................................................4-2 4.1.3 Resource allocation ................................................................................4-2 4.1.4 Terminology............................................................................................4-2 4.2 CONSERVATION BY CONNECTION ............................................................. 4-3 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CONSERVATION ............................................ 4-4 4.4 WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, PRACTICES, AND MEASURES ................... 4-5 4.4.1 Programs ................................................................................................4-5 4.4.2 Practices and Measures ..........................................................................4-6 4.4.3 Program Tables .......................................................................................4-6 4.5 OUTREACH......................................................................................... 4-8 4.5.1 Demonstration Gardens And SLCGARDENWISE.COM [0-3, 0-4, 0-5] .....4-9 4.5.2 Public Access, Cloud-based Portals [0-17] ............................................4-10 4.5.3 Conservation Learning Labs [0-14] .......................................................4-10 4.5.4 School Classroom Program [0-10] ........................................................4-11 4.5.5 Water Week and other Events [O-10, O-18] ........................................4-12 4.5.6 Conservation Action Plans [O-9, U-6] ...................................................4-12 4.6 ECONOMICS ..................................................................................... 4-17 4.6.1 Rebates, Micro-Grants, and Incentives [E-4, E-6, E-7, E-8] ...................4-18 4.6.2 CII Audits and Direct Installs [E-10] ......................................................4-18 4.7 UTILITY OPERATIONS .......................................................................... 4-21 4.7.1 Evaluate Data-Mining Opportunities of AMI Technologies [U-7, U-9] .4-22 4.7.2 Landscape Upgrades and Maintenance [U-2, U-10, U-11] ...................4-22 4.7.3 Leak Detection and M36 Audit Outcomes [U-3] ..................................4-23 4.7.4 City-Wide Water Efficiency Study [U-2, O-7] ........................................4-23 4.8 LAW AND POLICY ............................................................................... 4-27 4.8.1 Evaluate Ordinances and Policies [LP-4, LP-7, LP-8] .............................4-27 SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.9 RESEARCH AND METRICS ...................................................................... 4-32 4.9.1 Conduct AWWA M36 Study [R-19] ...................................................... 4-33 4.9.2 Establish Metrics, Benchmarks, and Goals for Conservation Programing [R-1, O-6] ....................................................................................................... 4-33 4.9.3 5- and 10-Year Proposed Water Conservation budget ....................... 4-33 4.9.4 Landscape and Turf Conversion Impacts ............................................. 4-33 4.9.5 SLCDPU/USU Collaboration [R-1, R-5, O-6, O-16] ................................ 4-34 4.9.6 SLCDPU/CVWCD Landscape Transformation Analysis [R-] .................. 4-38 4.9.7 CII Water Depletion Evaluation and Conservation/Great Salt Lake Impacts [R-20, R-21] ..................................................................................... 4-39 4.9.8 CII Analytics [R-20] ............................................................................... 4-39 CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATION PLAN 5.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ......................................................................... 5-1 5.2 STAKEHOLDERS AND SPECIAL INTERESTS ..................................................... 5-2 5.3 MEDIA AND SOCIAL PLATFORMS .............................................................. 5-2 5.4 AVENUES OF COMMUNICATION ............................................................... 5-2 5.5 ONGOING COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH ............................................ 5-2 APPENDICES A. SLCDPU WATER SERVICE AREA MAP ..................................................... A-2 B. MWDSLS ULS REPORT 2024, TABLE 4: SALT LAKE CITY WATER USAGE AND CONSERVATION TRENDS ...................................................................... A-3 C. STATE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 2025 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN CHECKLIST ........................................................................................ A-4 D. ANSI/AWWA G480-13 WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT STANDARD, FIRST EDITION. JULY 1, 2013 ............................ A-8 E. WATER CONSERVATION BUDGET 2025/26 ............................................ A-14 F. 17.16.092: WATER SHORTAGE MANAGEMENT POLICY ............................. A-16 G. SALT LAKE CITY CODE 21A-48-055 WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING STANDARDS ................................................................................................... A-17 H. PUBLIC UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES/WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DISCUSSION .................................................................................... A-18 I. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE & SANDY BOARD MINUTES/WATER CONSERVATION PLAN ........... A-19 J. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL FORMAL MEETING ..................... A-20 K. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL, MINUTES, AND RESOLUTION ............ A-21 L. M36 WATER AUDIT SUMMARIES ......................................................... A-22 M. SLCDPU DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN SUMMARY ................................. A-23 N. IMPACTS OF WATER CONSERVATION ON RATES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM, 2025 .. .................................................................................................... A-24 O. WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM MANAGER JOB DESCRIPTION .................. A-25 P. CONSERVATION ACTION PLANS ............................................................ A-26 Q. RESIDENTIAL WATER SALES TARGETS ..................................................... A-27 R. LINKS AND REFERENCES ...................................................................... A-29 S. GLOSSARY OF TERMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND ACRONYMS ............................ A-30 LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Page 1-1 Water System Service Area.......................................................................1-2 1-2 Demographic Factors Predictive Of Demand ............................................1-3 1-3 Projected SLCDPU Service Area Annual Production Requirements ..........1-4 1-4 Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Supply and Demand .................1-7 1-5 Little Cottonwood Creek-Annual Flow Volume at LCWTP ........................1-8 1-6 Projected SLCDPU Annual Production Requirements vs. Supply (Dry Year) With Supply Redundancy Buffers .............................................................1-9 2-1 Water Sales (gpd) .....................................................................................2-2 2-2 Salt Lake City Per Capita Water Use (gpd) ................................................2-3 2-3 Water Use Classification and Sub-Classification .......................................2-5 2-4 Volume of Use by Classification (AF/Year) ................................................2-6 2-5 Volume of Use by Sub-Classification (AF/Year) .........................................2-6 2-6 Seasonal Water Use, Single Residence (2022-2024) ................................2-7 2-7 Location of Use by Classification ..............................................................2-8 2-8 % Total Indoor Use by Classification .........................................................2-8 2-9 % Total Outdoor Use by Classification ......................................................2-8 2-10 Location of Use by Sub-Classification .......................................................2-9 2-11 % Total Indoor Use by Sub-Classification ..................................................2-9 2-12 % Total Outdoor Use by Sub-Classification ...............................................2-9 2-13 Volume of Use by Location of Use and Classification (AF/Year ..............2-10 2-14 Volume of Use by Location and Sub-Classification (AF/Year) .................2-10 SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Page 2-15 Per Capita Water Use by Classification (gpd) ......................................... 2-11 2-16 Monthly Conservation, Average of All Connections............................... 2-12 2-17 Percent Reduction Since 2001 by Classification ..................................... 2-13 2-18 Percent Reduction Since 2001 by Classification ..................................... 2-14 2-19 Volumes of Conservation Since 2001 by Location of Use and Classification (AF/Year) ................................................................................................ 2-14 2-20 Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Per Capita Peak Day Water Use (GPD) ............................................................................................... 2-15 3-1 Utah’s Regional M&I Water Conservation Goals ...................................... 3-3 3-2 SLCDPU Service Area Conservation Trend ................................................ 3-4 3-3 Additional Conservation by Month Averaged Across All Connections ..... 3-6 3-4 Estimated Additional Percentage to Achieve Long-Term Goal by Customer Classification ............................................................................................ 3-7 3-5 Volume of Conservation Needed to Achieve Long-Term Goal by Location of Use and Classification (AF/Year, Existing Customers) ........................... 3-8 3-6 Volume of Conservation Needed to Achieve Long-Term Goal by Location of Use and Sub-Classification (AF/Year, Existing Customers) ................... 3-9 3-7 Hotel and Motel Total Annual Use ......................................................... 3-10 3-8 Finance and Insurance Total Annual Use ............................................... 3-10 3-9 Hospitals Total Annual Use ..................................................................... 3-10 3-10 Real Estate and Rental Leasing Total Annual Use ................................... 3-10 3-11 CII Mean LIR ........................................................................................... 3-11 3-12 CII LIR by Service Connection ................................................................. 3-11 3-13 Conservation Alternatives ...................................................................... 3-14 4-1 Average Residential LIR Ranges .............................................................. 4-36 4-2 Residential Categorization by LIR and Water Volume ........................... 4-36 LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page 1-1 Projected Annual Yield of SLCDPU Surface Water Sources.......................1-5 1-2 SLCDPU Projected Dry Year Production Existing and Future Sources ......1-6 2-1 Water Sales in Acre-Feet ..........................................................................2-2 2-2 Estimated System Losses 2021-2024 ........................................................2-4 2-3 Total Connections .....................................................................................2-6 2-4 Reported Water Sales to Division of Water Rights (Acre-Feet) ................2-6 2-5 Updated Water Sales Data (Acre-Feet) .....................................................2-6 2-6 2024 Per Capita Water Use By Classification (gpd).................................2-11 3-1 Long-Term Conservation Goals Expressed as Per Capita Use (Gallons Sales Per Day) ....................................................................................................3-5 3-2 Percent Reduction In Per Capita Sales To Achieve Long-Term Goals ........3-5 3-3 Recommended Per-Household Interim Conservation Goals for Single Family Residential Customers ...................................................................3-8 3-4 Long-Term (2060) Conservation Goals by Sub-Classification .................3-12 3-5 Recommended Interim Conservation Goals ...........................................3-13 3-6 Interim Conservation Goals By Classification (af/year) ..........................3-13 3-7 Long-Term (2060) GSL Conservation Alternative Goals ..........................3-14 4-1 Additional Reduction In Per Connection Use Needed (Gpd/Connection) 4-3 4-2 Outreach .................................................................................................4-13 4-3 Economics ...............................................................................................4-19 4-4 Utility Operations ...................................................................................4-24 4-5 Law and Policy ........................................................................................4-29 4-6 Research and Metrics .............................................................................4-40 SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 1-1 DRAFT SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE 1 Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan, Bowen Collins & Associates, February 2019 CHAPTER ONE: SUPPLY AND DEMAND 1.0 I NTRODUCTION Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (Department or SLCDPU) retained Bowen Collins & Associates (BC&A) to complete a supply and demand master plan for its water system1. The purpose of that study was to compare the availability of water supplies to the existing and future demands on the system. The results of that study are meant to guide the Department’s decisions regarding supply management and development, as well as inform the Department’s decisions regarding demand management, including the establishment of conservation targets. Key elements of that study are summarized here to ensure consistency within the Department’s multiple planning processes. The details contained in this chapter are derived nearly entirely from the Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan, 2019 (Supply and Demand Plan), including service area, demand projections, current and future water supplies, water supply risks, and recommended actions. As summarized in the highlights to the left, future demand (without additional conservation) will outpace future supply by approximately 14 percent, owing in part to anticipated growth. A number of potential risks have been identified, though impacts from climate change bring the widest range of variables and may alter both water supply and demand projections. A number of strategies have been identified to meet this potential water supply shortfall. One strategy already in place is to plan for reserve water supplies through the use of operational and planning practices. Continued research related to climate change will improve our understanding of supply and demand impacts, lessening uncertainty. Lastly, and the subject of this plan, is to expand an already robust conservation program by improving our understanding of water use behaviors and patterns to further enhance water conservation efforts and meet newly established demand reduction goals. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 1-2 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE 1.1 S ALT L AKE C ITY P UBLIC U TILITIES S ERVICE A REA Salt Lake City (City) currently provides all retail water service within Salt Lake City corporate boundaries. It also provides retail service to portions of other communities on the east side of the Salt Lake Valley. This includes portions of South Salt Lake, Mill Creek, Holladay, Murray, Cottonwood Heights, and unincorporated Salt Lake County. The service area is shown in Figure 1-1 with a larger, more detailed map included in the appendix to this plan. The Utility service area is shown in pink. It should be noted that there are two private water providers completely surrounded by the City’s service area. The University of Utah (shown in red) and Holliday Water Company (shown in blue) have their own sources and distribute water within their respective service areas. They also purchase water from the Utility, with that purchased water included within this analysis. 1.2 D EMANDS ON THE W ATER S YSTEM When discussing water demand, system water volume is measured either as production or water sales. Water supply needs are typically discussed in terms of production, where water demand is assessed by analyzing water sales. Water Sales. Water sales (sometimes referred to as “water use”) refers to the amount of water metered at the point of connection to customers. This total amount is reported to the State of Utah Division of Water Rights and Central Utah Project (CUP) annually for tracking water use and conservation progress. Because of the more detailed information available regarding individual water customers, water sales are used for calculating use and reduction values in Chapters 2 and 3. Production. Evaluation of supply is based on demands on the water system expressed in terms of production requirement. The production requirement is the amount of water that must be produced at wells and treatment plants, and be purchased from wholesale providers, in order to meet the entire water supply and water storage needs of the system and our customers. Water sales do not represent the full volume of water within the system. Inherent in any system is water loss, which is the difference between produced water and authorized consumption. This water loss may be real losses (such as leakage, unmetered authorized uses such as firefighting water, and storage tank overflows) and apparent losses (such as meter inaccuracies at the point of delivery, data errors, or theft of water). FIGURE 1-1 WATER SYSTEM SERVICE AREA SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 1-3 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE As future production requirements are evaluated, there are limitations in making these projections. We cannot predict actual demand, but we can project future use by evaluating select demographic factors. This information then informs projections of total water use. Water production requirements in the service area were estimated by first developing projections for the four characteristics predictive of demand as shown in Figure 1-2: 4.1 Residential Population to predict residential indoor use; 5.1 Employment Population to predict commercial and institutional indoor use; 6.1 Industrial Area to predict industrial uses; and 7.1 Irrigated Area to predict outdoor use for all water user classifications (residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial). The water production for each characteristic was projected with respect to anticipated growth and development. The predictions of system growth are based on planning data (e.g. SLC zoning maps), regional planning data (e.g. U.S. 2010 census and Wasatch Front Regional Council growth projections), and coordination with City officials. For additional detail, please refer to the Supply and Demand Master Plan. With growth in each component projected, it is then possible to model future indoor and outdoor water use: Indoor Use. For most indoor use, it was determined that water demand could be reasonably estimated using residential population (to project residential water use) and employment projections (to project commercial and institutional water use). The only type of indoor use that did not appear to be well represented by these two parameters is industrial use. For industrial demands, water use was projected based on total developed industrial area. Outdoor Use. Outdoor use was determined by evaluating estimated total irrigatable area multiplied by historical outdoor water use. This was initially estimated to be 3.5 AF/acre (or 42 inches of water per season) in 2001,2 but 2 Per 2001 irrigation water use data. See Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan, p2-9 has gradually decreased to an estimated current use of 2.66 acre-feet (32 inches of water per season).3 The final step of projecting demands is to combine the projected indoor and outdoor water demand. 3 Per recent water use data (2022-24). See Chapter 2. Please note that these values are for water production. Actual application rate at the point of delivery (including system losses) will be 10 to 12 percent less. FIGURE 1-2 DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS PREDICTIVE OF DEMAND SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 1-4 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE The outcome of this analysis is displayed in Figure 1-3, which shows the historical and projected water production requirements in terms of annual production. This projected water production is based on expected demands if no additional conservation is achieved beyond what has been accomplished to date. Without increased levels of conservation, required production is expected to increase from 87,000 acre-feet today to about 127,200 acre-feet by the year 2060, or roughly a 34% increase in production to meet population growth over the next 40 years. 1.3 SLC DPU W ATER S UPPL Y The City has a number of existing water sources and is also planning future supplies. Like nearly all water sources, the water produced is tied to precipitation. As intuition would suggest, in years with above average snow and rainfall, sources almost always produce more, and sometimes a lot more. Conversely, in dry years, sources usually produce less water. Consecutive dry years can exacerbate pressures on supplies and result in reduction in source water. This reduction can then be compounded by increased demands due to hotter and drier periods. Water demand management during times of drought is addressed in the Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Plan, which can be found on line at www.slc.gov/utilities/conservation. Available water associated with both existing and future sources for both average and dry water years is summarized in the following sections. 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 An n u a l P r o d u c t i o n ( a c r e -fe e t ) Historical Production Projected Production Without Additional Conservation FIGURE 1-3 PROJECTED SLCDPU SERVICE AREA ANNUAL PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 1-5 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE 1.3.1 EXISTING SOURCES The existing water supply comes from a number of different sources, and for planning purposes, have been grouped into three categories: Surface Water Sources. Salt Lake City and the Department hold water rights for a number of surface water sources. This includes surface water treated at the following utility-owned and operated treatment plants: Big Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant (BCWTP), Parleys Water Treatment Plant (Parleys WTP), and City Creek Water Treatment Plant (CCWTP). This category also includes portions of surface water in Little Cottonwood Creek. This water is treated at Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant (LCWTP), a plant owned and operated by Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy (MWDSLS). Expected yields for each source based on historic flow records, available storage, and available treatment capacity at each of the plants are summarized in Table 1-1. TABLE 1-1 PROJECTED ANNUAL YIELD OF SLCDPU SURFACE WATER SOURCES Source Average Year Yield (acre-feet) Dry Year Yield (acre-feet) Comments BCWTP 22,000 18,900 Dry Year in 2015 Parleys WTP 11,200 3,100 Dry year based on firm yield of Little Dell Reservoir CCWTP 5,950 4,500 Dry Year in 2015 LCC (LCWTP) 20,350 14,320 Dry year in 2015 Total 59,500 40,820 Groundwater Sources. Salt Lake City and the Department hold water rights for a number of groundwater sources. For evaluation purposes, groundwater sources have been broken into two categories: Base Wells and Springs. The City has several springs and artesian wells that require little or no pumping. Water from these sources is used year-round. The estimated average production of these sources is 7,500 acre-feet per year. This is for both average and dry water years. Peaking Wells. All remaining ground water sources are generally used only during the summer months to meet peak demands. Annual water production from these wells will vary significantly based on needs, but has an estimated maximum of 10,400 acre-feet. Preferred Storage Rights through Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy (MWDSLS). This category of supply consists of water received through membership in MWDSLS. This includes water stored in Deer Creek and Jordanelle Reservoirs and comes in two components as follows: MWDSLS Provo River Project (PRP) Storage. The average year production of this source is 53,760 acre-feet. This is based on the full MWDSLS allotment of 61,700 acre-feet less 7,940 acre-feet of preferred storage reserved for Sandy City. Dry year production from this source has been estimated at 18,900 acre-feet. This is based on a 43.5% percent allotment from Deer Creek Reservoir as was experienced during the recent drought (2013). MWDSLS Central Utah Project (CUP) Storage. The available supply from this source is assumed to be 20,000 acre-feet in both average and dry years, which is the contractually defined amount. Utah Lake System Water. The City petitioned Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) for Central Utah Project (CUP) water through the planned Utah Lake System (ULS). This system was completed this year and is expected to supply 3,100 acre-feet going forward. 1.3.2 FUTURE SOURCES Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR). In conjunction with Sandy City and MWDSLS, the City is currently investigating the utilization of aquifer storage and recovery. This option will utilize high spring runoff from surface water sources to be injected or infiltrated into the aquifer and documented with the State Engineer. Then, in dry years, this water would be available for extraction through wells. It is estimated that potential dry year yield of this source will be 5,900 acre-feet. This amount could be greater depending on sustained conservation efforts, as reduction in demand would reduce extraction volume. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 1-6 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE New Well Development. Development of additional groundwater has been planned to meet future growth and estimates development of current rights could yield up to 12,000 acre-feet additional groundwater. Wastewater Reuse. Opportunities for wastewater reuse have been studied. Initial plans for wastewater reuse would produce approximately 4,200 acre -feet annually. Additional Surface Water Development. Another potential supply is the development of a treatment plant to treat water from Millcreek Canyon or from other surface water sources. Based on historic flow records for Millcreek, potential yield from this source is estimated to be 3,970 acre-feet in an average year and 3,300 acre-feet in a dry year. Secondary Water. Recently, an analysis of potential opportunities for using secondary water on City properties within its service area4 was completed. While there are some limited opportunities for the use of secondary water, the analysis concluded that most of these opportunities were not viable at this time. The analysis also concluded that nearly all of the secondary water rights woul d be needed for other purposes in a dry year and correspondingly would not add appreciably to the reliable annual water supply of the City. A final consideration is that within the City watershed, secondary water is generally derived from the same sources as is culinary water, that is, from snow melt from the Wasatch Mountains. With this in mind, secondary water does not offer a new or discrete supply and so does not fully alleviate culinary demand burdens. 1.3.3 TOTAL ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY The total projected production of each category of supply described above is summarized in Table 1-2. For dry year conditions, annual supply is expected to increase from its existing yield of 97,620 acre-feet to a total future yield of 126,120 acre-feet. 4 Salt Lake City Secondary Water Irrigation Master Plan, Bowen Collins & Associates, February 2019. TABLE 1-2 SLCDPU PROJECTED DRY YEAR PRODUCTION EXISTING AND FUTURE SOURCES Supply Category Projected Average Year Production (acre-feet)1 Projected Dry Year Production (acre-feet) Existing Surface Water Sources 59,500 40,820 Existing Groundwater Sources 7,500 17,900 Existing Storage Sources 73,760 38,900 New Wells 0 12,000 Additional Surface Water (MCWTP) 3,970 3,300 ULS 3,100 3,100 ASR2 -5,900 5,900 Additional SLC Surface Water 4,200 4,200 Total3 146,130 126,120 1. New Wells are projected at no production in the average year not because they are not available, but because they are not needed during average (or wet) years. 2. ASR is shown to have a negative production in the average year to represent the use of excess surface water source in the spring for injection into the aquifer. Thus, it will be a new demand, represented here as a “negative” source. This activity will occur in average years to make water available for extraction in dry years. 3. Secondary water supply is not included in this table as it is already being used for other purposes or was determined to not be a viable source of water at this time. Refer to Salt Lake City Secondary Water Irrigation Master Plan. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 1-7 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE 1.4 W ATER S YSTEM R ISK When planning for water supply, it is important to prepare for uncertainty by identifying and addressing risk and vulnerability to water supplies and within the system infrastructure. Regardless, if these uncertainties take the form of extreme weather conditions, system interruptions or failures, or other events, careful analysis and planning can mitigate or ameliorate negative outcomes. Four important questions were considered when analyzing long-term water supply projections in relation to mitigating risk: A. Is the historical data an appropriate indication of future source performance in the critical planning scenario (i.e. the “dry year”)? The last 30 years have been drier than the long- term measured period of record.5 However, this 30-year dry period is typical of dry periods in the paleo record.6 Therefore, the use of historical data (over the past 30 years) to describe future source performance appears to be an appropriate starting point. B. Are there factors (such as climate change) that would cause water supplies to perform differently than in the past? There are several conceivable events that might affect future supplies in such a way that would cause future performance to be different than the historical record might suggest. These events can range from temporary supply interruptions (with causes such as sudden equipment failure, earthquake, or wildfire) to long term changes to supply performance (with causes such as climate change). 5 See Figures 4-2 and 4-3 from the Water Supply and Demand Master Plan. 6 See Figures 4-4 and 4-5 from the Water Supply and Demand Master Plan. Climate change analysis is incorporated into long-term water resource planning. Though immediate changes in climate or weather variability are addressed in the Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Plan, increasing frequency or duration of these variables will affect day -to-day water demand. As such, it is important to consider the impacts of climate change not only to supply, but also to demand as conceptually shown in Figure 1-4.7 The EPA Climate Change Adaptation Resource Center identifies water demand modification as one of many viable strategies for increasing water supply resilience and security in the face of climate change. 7 Climate Resilience Approaches in Salt Lake City. May 16, 2018. Laura Briefer. American Water Resources, Utah Section. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec CURRENT AVERAGE MAKEUP WATER CURRENT AVERAGE SUPPLY FUTURE AVERAGE DEMAND? FUTURE AVERAGE SUPPLY? CURRENT AVERAGE DEMAND MET FIGURE 1-4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON SUPPLY AND DEMAND SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 1-8 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE C. What level of system redundancy is reasonable to address possible supply interruptions, such as a source failure or outage? As part of its Water Supply and Demand Master Plan, several supply redundancy criteria have been adopted to address potential supply interruptions. This includes different levels of redundancy for single source loss and catastrophic loss of water supplies. Additional details regarding these redundancy criteria are contained in the Water Supply and Demand Master Plan. (See Figure 1-5). D.How can demand management and conservation proactively reduce potential impacts to supply or system as a result of risk? Demand management can be an effective tool in ameliorating future potential negative impacts related to risk and vulnerability of supply. This is the primary topic of this plan and is addressed in Chapter 4. Relative to risk, it should be noted that all practical and necessary steps are undertaken to minimize these types of risks. This includes regularly scheduled maintenance, regular inspections of key equipment, advanced asset management tracking, and rehabilitation and replacement planning. Additional discussion pertaining to risk, vulnerability, and potential mitigation can be found in the Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Plan. 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 19 1 2 19 1 4 19 1 6 19 1 8 19 2 0 19 2 2 19 2 4 19 2 6 19 2 8 19 3 0 19 3 2 19 3 4 19 3 6 19 3 8 19 4 0 19 4 2 19 4 4 19 4 6 19 4 8 19 5 0 19 5 2 19 5 4 19 5 6 19 5 8 19 6 0 19 6 2 19 6 4 19 6 6 19 6 8 19 7 0 19 7 2 19 7 4 19 7 6 19 7 8 19 8 0 19 8 2 19 8 4 19 8 6 19 8 8 19 9 0 19 9 2 19 9 4 19 9 6 19 9 8 20 0 0 20 0 2 20 0 4 20 0 6 20 0 8 20 1 0 20 1 2 20 1 4 20 1 6 Average Flow Volume FIGURE 1-5 LITTLE COTTONWOOD CREEK-ANNUAL FLOW VOLUME AT LCWTP SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 1-9 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE 1.5 F UTURE A NNUAL P RODUCTION R EQUIREMENTS C OMPARED TO F UTURE D EMAND Figure 1-6 compares the total dry year water supply (including new supplies that have not yet been developed) with SLCDPU’s recommended supply planning demand scenario (including applicable provisions for risk). The scenario assumes that: 1. Conservation will, minimally, continue to maintain pace with recent levels and the current regional Conservation goal (15% reduction in per capita water usage by 2040). 2. The new conservation goals (see Chapter 3), which meet or exceed the State’s newly adopted regional conservation goals; and 3. Required production will include provisions to meet levels of supply risk as described in the previous section. 4. Reuse water is no longer a projected water source, as the Utility is making that water available to Great Salt Lake. As can be seen in Figure 1-6, as long as the conservation goals are met by the end of the planning window, current and anticipated future supplies are sufficient for long term projected system demands. However, the figure also shows that there will be very little excess capacity when supply risk and recommended redundancy is considered. This means that failing to meet the conservation goals could result in risk of inadequate water supply for projected FIGURE 1-6 PROJECTED SLCDPU ANNUAL PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS VS. SUPPLY (DRY YEAR) WITH SUPPLY REDUNDANCY BUFFERS SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 1-10 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE demands. Reviewing and reevaluating these goals to lessen risk, decrease pressure on reserved water, improve supply redundancies, and optimize changes in technology and behavior related to demand management is recommended. 1.6 R ECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis summarized above, the following actions identified in the Water Supply and Demand Master Plan are recommended for inclusion in the SLC Water Conservation Plan: Increase Efforts in Water Conservation Programming to Achieve Short - and Long-term Goals. Water supply challenges will occur if conservation programming efforts and outcomes to achieve the recommended planning scenario goals defined in this report (see Chapter 3) are not reached . Details of the conservation program proposed to meet these goals are discussed in Chapter 4 of this plan. Protect and Manage Water Supply. The City will require all identified water supplies to accommodate future growth with adequate buffer to address reasonable risk to the water supply. This includes: • Developing an Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) program (Estimated completion time =2025) • Developing new groundwater wells (gradually added between 2026 and 2036) • Plan to dedicate water previously planned for reuse to the Great Salt Lake. • The City should continue to monitor supplies and demands into the future and refine project timelines accordingly. Monitor Effects of Climate Change. Climate change impacts analysis should continue to remain a component of long-term water resource planning. Though immediate changes in climate or weather variability can be addressed in the Salt Lake City Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (2019), increasing frequency or duration of these variables will affect day -to-day water demand. As such, it is important to consider the impacts of climate change not only on supply but also demand. The US Environmental Protection Agency Climate 8 Resilient Strategies Guide for Water Utilities. US-EPA 2019 Change Adaptation Resource Center identifies water demand modification as one of many viable strategies for increasing water supply resilience and security in the face of climate change. Continued monitoring of the water supply and demand is recommended, modifying this plan as necessary to address changing circumstances associated with climate change.8 Review and Reevaluate Conservation Goals. Regular review of conservation goals and outcomes will help to reduce risk, increase resiliency, and improve the ability to respond to changes in demand and supply, particularly in light of impacts to supply of increased reduction in use for Great Salt Lake. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 2-1 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO DRAFT CHAPTER TWO: HISTORICAL WATER USE 2.0 I NTRODUCTION Measuring water demand in terms of water production is the common practice for supply planning; however, water sales can be a more useful measurement when considering water use by connection and customer. This measurement is useful because water delivery meters are tied to specific end users. As discussed in Chapter 1, water use data reported to the State of Utah Division of Water Rights is based on water sales. The service area has been fully metered at the customer connection for nearly one hundred years. Meters are read every month and bills are issued to every water customer, including city and other government entities. This depth of metering history and data informs planning processes, and in particular, shapes the nature of water demand management and conservation planning. To analyze historical water use, we consider not only total water sales, but also general characteristics of those using the water, as well as the nature of water use patterns. Identifying types of customers and aggregating them into groups– classifications–helps us more effectively analyze water use, recognize patterns, chart trends, and anticipate future water needs based on the characteristics of our customers (user classifications) and the numbers of customers within each classification. This analysis informs planning across all aspects of the Department and is particularly useful in conservation planning. This chapter documents historical water use based on total water sales, water sales in several classifications and subclassifications, water sales as expressed as gallons per capita day (gpcd) and impacts of historical water conservation. Additionally, water loss–the difference between water produced and water sold–is also discussed, as well as an overview of water conservation program impacts. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 2-2 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO 2.1 T OTAL W ATER U SE Water sales data has been collected, analyzed, and reported for many years. A summary of the reported sales since 2000 is shown in Table 2-1 and plotted in Figure 2-1. TABLE 2-1 WATER SALES IN ACRE-FEET Year Total Sales Reported to DWRi 2000 89,138 2001 91,712 2002 85,306 2003 80,641 2004 78,900 2005 71,297 2006 76,645 2007 87,190 2008 75,843 2009 74,697 2010 75,755 2011 70,130 2012 83,611 2013 80,196 2014 75,300 2015 72,722 2016 75,261 2017 78,310 2018 77,867 2019 69,299 2020 78,713 2021 68,767 2022 69,523 2023 69,134 2024 77,901 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000 90,000 95,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Us e P e r C a p i t a ( g p d ) DWRi Records FIGURE 2-1 WATER SALES (GPD) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 2-3 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO 2.2 P ER C APITA U SE The primary way in which the State has chosen to measure water use and conservation progress is based on per capita water sales. Per capita water sales are calculated by dividing total water sales by a census-based population, a simplistic statistical analysis representing complex use characteristics. Per capita water sales for the service area over the past 18 years is shown in Figure 2-2. The per capita measuring approach is commonly used by the State of Utah as it provides a uniform methodology that can be applied to the many water systems it regulates. Unfortunately, there are also a number of weaknesses associated with measuring water and conservation progress based on per capita water sales. System Losses. Basing calculations on water sales rather than water production does not capture the effect of system losses on water consumption. Consequently, elimination of leaks and other system losses has no effect on per capita water sales even though these kinds of savings are an important part of overall conservation efforts. This may also result in undervaluing water loss programing as an effective conservation tool, as this method of calculation does not account for water loss and therefore reducing water loss do es not alter gallons per capita calculations. Effects of Land Use. Per capita water sales can be misleading because it does not adequately communicate the effects of density and other land use aspects on water use. For example, if a community significantly increases its population density, the amount of outdoor water use associated with each person may go down. This may result in lower per capita water sales even if the actual efficiency of water use does not improve. While this type of decrease in per capita water sales may reduce peak demand, it may not reflect overall changes in water use as a result of densification. Demand Forecasting. Frequently used to forecast future water demand, the use of per capita consumption assumes that water use increases in a predictable manner as population grows. This, however, ignores a number of national trends important to determining use levels, including but not limited to drought, recession, changes in demographics, changes in household or lot size, changes in commercial and industrial profiles, and improvements in technology. 9Water Conservation Programs M52, page 41 Additionally, assuming use increases with population ignores the role of conservation planning, education, and improvements in efficiencies related to use.9 Misinterpretation. Per capita consumption may also be misinterpreted to mean “volume of water used per person,” when in fact, it includes much more than direct use by individuals. As noted above, it also includes water use from all other classifications (commercial, institutional, and industrial) averaged across the population. Comparing gallons per capita of communities with differing 100 150 200 250 300 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Us e P e r C a p i t a ( g p d ) DWRi Records FIGURE 2-2 SALT LAKE CITY PER CAPITA WATER USE (GPD) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 2-4 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO demographics or commercial and industrial bases can lead to misleading comparisons or characterizations of how water is actually being used. This may also affect an individual’s response to calls to conserve as they may not relate to the volume of water described in the gallons -per-capita statistic. When looking at residential use only, use per person in 2024 was only about 81 gpd (indoor and outdoor use). Adjustment for Equivalent Employment Population. While the weaknesses above are universal to all water providers, there are also some other weakness to using per capita water sales that are unique to the situations of individual water providers. One of these weaknesses is the impact of daytime employment population on water demand. Salt Lake City has a larger daytime worker population compared to other cities in Utah. Not only is the total magnitude large, but the ratio of workers to permanent population is also much larger than most other communities, even when compared to similarly sized communities across the country. This was demonstrated as an outcome of the 2000 US Census. The consequence of this larger-than-average worker population is that, in calculating per capita water sales, the standard calculation does not account for a daytime population surge of nearly 50 percent of the residential population. This in turn could result in under-projecting daytime water needs and distribution capacity. Additionally, this daytime surge may result in inflated daily per capita calculations. To account for this issue, a revised methodology has been developed which calculates per capita water sales based on a revised population number .10 This revised population number includes both permanent residents and an equivalent residential population representing the higher than average worker population. This revised population has been used to generate the results in Figure 2-10. Because of these weaknesses, tracking water use and conservation on a per capita basis does not provide as complete a view of actual water use patterns as is necessary to properly analyze and evaluate water use patterns and trends for planning purposes. However, since this is the method traditionally used by the State to track water use, it will continue to be referenced here. Additional metrics will also be added where useful to help define and clarify water use and conservation within the service area. 10 Documentation of MWDSLS Conservation Performance – ULS Supply Petition, Bowen Collins & Associates, April 28, 2006 2.3 S YSTEM L OSSES As discussed in Chapter 1, water use (as measured through sales at individual delivery points), does not encompass all of the water held or consumed in the water system. Water loss is defined as the difference between water produced and authorized consumption (such as metered water sales or fire protection). The resulting “unaccounted for” water may be apparent loss, such as theft or data analysis errors, or real losses, which consist of water lost through all types of leaks and breaks within the water infrastructure system. Understanding the nature of system loss is critical to developing effective management and mitigation strategies, with the goal of reducing system-wide losses. A comparison of water sales to metered production can identify the magnitude of water losses in the system. This is summarized in Table 2-2. TABLE 2-2 ESTIMATED SYSTEM LOSSES 2021-2024 YEAR Sales (Acre-feet) Production (Acre-feet) System Losses (Acre-feet) System Losses (%) 2021 68,767 85,473 16,706 19.54% 2022 69,523 81,634 12,111 14.84% 2023 69,134 83,813 14,679 17.51% 2024 77,901 89,939 12,038 13.38% To verify and address system losses, a water loss and control audit in accordance with AWWA M36 recommendations has been conducted from 2000 to 2024.11 More details of these programs can be found in Chapter Four: Water Conservation Programs. 11American Water Works Association (AWWA). 2017. M52 Water Conservation Programs: A Planning Manual, Second Edition. Denver, Colorado. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 2-5 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO 2.4 U SE BY C LASSIFICATION AND S UB -C LASSIFICATION To provide additional background and context for developing, evaluating, and ultimately implementing conservation measures, it is useful to understand the details of how water is used within the service area. The figures and tables contained in this section have been assembled to provide additional detail regarding the breakdown of use by customer classification. These same classifications and sub-classifications will be used in the discussion of conservation programing in Chapter 4. Customers have been organized into a number of classifications based on shared characteristics such as use patterns and costs of service. This includes both broad classifications (residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional) and more narrowly defined sub-classifications (single-family residence, triplex, hospital, restaurant, etc.). The classifications and sub-classifications used for this analysis are summarized in the corresponding graphic (Figure 2-3). Total numbers of existing connections by classification as reported to the DWRi are summarized in Table 2-3. Reported use by classification is summarized in Table 2-4 and Table 2-5. Table 2-4 includes a long-term record of use by Residential Single Residence Duplex Triplex Fourplex Commercial Business Hospital Hotel or Motel Restaurant Apartment Miscellaneous Institutional School Church Parks Government Industrial Industrial customers of all types FIGURE 2-3 WATER USE CLASSIFICATION AND SUB-CLASSIFICATION SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 2-6 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO classification as reported to the DWRi. Table 2-5 includes records from 2021- 2024 based on improved customer classification data as discussed previously . Total use by classification and sub-classification are shown graphically in Figures 2-4 and 2-5, respectively. TABLE 2-3 TOTAL CONNECTIONS YEAR Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Total 2024 73,256 9,322 272 1,332 84,182 TABLE 2-4 REPORTED WATER SALES TO DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS (ACRE-FEET) YEAR RESIDENTIAL2 COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONAL1 TOTAL 2010 43,283 17,584 3,397 11,491 75,755 2011 40,703 16,534 2,688 10,205 70,130 2012 48,611 18,813 3,331 12,856 83,611 2013 44,454 19,078 3,459 13,205 80,196 2014 42,283 18,587 3,699 10,731 75,300 2015 40,702 17,723 3,474 10,823 72,722 2016 42,695 17,858 3,527 11,181 75,261 2017 43,534 20,313 3,662 10,801 78,310 2018 44,272 18,792 3,627 11,176 77,867 2019 38,642 17,145 3,745 9,767 78,867 2020 46,294 16,881 3,693 11,845 69,299 2021 39,543 16,228 3,690 9,306 78,713 2022 36,817 15,996 3,870 12,840 68,767 2023 36,817 17,616 4,118 10,583 69,523 2024 39,914 18,921 5,577 13,490 69,134 1.In 2005 and 2006, a portion of SLC water use was reported under a customer class labeled as “Other”. This use has been included under the institutional classification in Table 2-4. 2. For purposes of this table and consistency with State reporting documents, apartments are included in the residential classification. However, apartments will be considered commercial for all subsequent portions of this report. TABLE 2-5 UPDATED WATER SALES DATA (ACRE-FEET) YEAR Residential Commercial1 Institutional Industrial Total 2022 29,522 29,658 7,713 4,076 70,969 2023 29,567 28,959 7,194 4,161 69,882 2024 32,177 31,555 8,152 4,378 76,261 1. Including apartments. - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL INDUSTRIAL ALL CII - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 FIGURE 2-4 VOLUME OF USE BY CLASSIFICATION (AF/YEAR) FIGURE 2-5 VOLUME OF USE BY SUB-CLASSIFICATION (AF/YEAR) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 2-7 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO 2.5 I NDOOR AND O UTDOOR W ATER U SE Water meters are read and recorded every month (or more factually, by a range of days approximating a month). Understanding not only how much water is used, but also when it is used helps in both supply planning and demand management. One way to evaluate water use is to consider whether the water is being used indoors or outside. As this region has a distinct winter season, some inferences can be made regarding water use based on the time of year of the use. With this in mind, it is assumed that water use which occurs in winter months (November through March) is used indoors. Water use during the months of April through October (approximating the landscape irrigation season) is a combination of outdoor and indoor use. Outdoor use, (assumed to be water primarily used to support landscapes) is therefore determined to be the volume of water use during the irrigation season, less the volume of water during the winter months. This process has shortcomings, in that other water use patterns may alter with shifts in the season, but it represents the best estimate based on available data and is accepted industry practice. Figure 2-6 illustrates this analysis within the single-family residential classification. While the reasonableness of this assumption might make sense with residential properties, it is less certain that the same assumption can be made for commercial, institutional, and industrial customers. However, to simplify the discussion of seasonal water use and for purposes of this plan, outdoor water use is water used during the non-winter months and is assumed to be used on landscapes. As installation of AMI technology (Advanced Metering Infrastructure, or smart meters), CII analysis, and WaterMAPS™ is completed, this analysis will greatly improve in accuracy. Estimates for winter and summer usage by customer classifications follow. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Mo n t h l y U s e P e r C o n n e c t i o n ( c c f ) Outdoor Use Indoor Use FIGURE 2-6 SEASONAL WATER USE, SINGLE RESIDENCE (2022-2024) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 2-8 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO Water Use by Classification (Figures 2-7 through 2-9). When looking at the broader classifications, the two largest water users are the residential and commercial classifications. Residential use accounts for about half of all outdoor use and a third of all indoor use. Conversely, commercial water accounts for about half of indoor use and a third of the outdoor use. Because more water is used outdoors than indoors, residential water use is greater overall. The percentage of water used indoors and outdoors varies significantly between the various classifications. Almost 80 percent of institutional water use occurs outdoors while industrial outdoor use is less than 20 percent. This makes sense, given that institutional users include parks, schools, and other sub-classifications that are responsible for and maintain outdoor public spaces. Overall, about 46 percent of the water is used indoors and 54 percent is used outdoors. 37.6% 55.3% 20.5% 82.5% 51.7% 45.8% 62.4% 44.7% 79.5% 17.5% 48.3% 54.2% 0%20%40%60%80%100% RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL INDUSTRIAL ALL CII TOTAL -ALL CATEGORIES Indoor Outdoor 35% 50% 5% 10%Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial 48% 34% 16% 2% Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial FIGURE 2-7 LOCATION OF USE BY CLASSIFICATION FIGURE 2-8 % TOTAL INDOOR USE BY CLASSIFICATION FIGURE 2-9 % TOTAL OUTDOOR USE BY CLASSIFICATION SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 2-9 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO Water Use by Sub-Classifications (Figures 2-10 through 2-12). Water use varies between sub-classifications. The sub-classification of single-family residence uses more water both indoors and outdoors than other sub-classifications. While the total portion of indoor water use by single-family customers is slightly more than indoor use by businesses, it is more than double the outdoor use of any other sub-classification. This may not be due to overuse but may be a result of property characteristics unique to this sub -classification. Analyzing use at this level, for instance, through programs like WaterMAPS™, can improve conservation programming design, and therefore, effectiveness. This in turn will help to assure that conservation goals are achieved in a manner that is timely, cost effective, and fair. Water use also varies within larger classifications. Residential outdoor use varies from 65 percent for single-family residential use to 31 percent for higher density properties. Among commercial users, Miscellaneous uses more water outdoors, while restaurants and hotels use more indoors. It is not unexpected that Parks has their highest percentage of use outdoors, and should not in itself be interpreted as overuse, but may indicate opportunity to conserve. 58.2% 78.2% 82.5% 72.9% 38.9% 67.4% 3.7% 24.2% 68.3% 69.0% 54.7% 53.4% 83.2% 35.4% 41.8% 21.8% 17.5% 27.1% 61.1% 32.6% 96.3% 75.8% 31.7% 31.0% 45.3% 46.6% 16.8% 64.6% HOSPITAL HOTEL OR MOTEL INDUSTRY RESTAURANT SCHOOL/CHURCH TRIPLEX PARKS & MUNICIPALS MISCELLANEOUS FOURPLEX APARTMENT DUPLEX BUSINESS MIXED USE SINGLE RESIDENCE Indoor Outdoor 1% 3% 10% 1% 4% 0.5% 0.4%3% 1% 16% 3%26% 0.3% 30% Hospital Hotel or Motel Industry Restaurant School/Church Triplex 1%1% 2% 0.3% 6% 0.2% 10% 7% 1%6%2% 19%0.1% 45% Hospital Hotel or Motel Industry Restaurant School/Church FIGURE 2-10 LOCATION OF USE BY SUB-CLASSIFICATION FIGURE 2-11 % TOTAL INDOOR USE BY SUB-CLASSIFICATION FIGURE 2-12 % TOTAL OUTDOOR USE BY SUB-CLASSIFICATION SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 2-10 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO Total Volume of Indoor and Outdoor Use (Figures 2-132 and 2-14). Figures 2-13 and 2-14 summarize indoor and outdoor water use by classification and sub- classification in terms of total volume (based on 2024 water use data). This provides some perspective on the total potential for conservation savings in each area. Consistent with previous conclusions, these figures confirm that much of the volume of water saved through conservation will need to come from single- family residences. However, the combined volume of other user types is also significant and cannot be overlooked. Detailed analysis for the commercial, industrial, and institutional classifications will ensure a clearer picture of water use patterns within these sectors. Understanding how businesses, offices, and industry use water helps identify opportunities for conservation, facilitating the development and implementation of effective demand management strategies. Commercial, industrial, and institutional customers are integral partners in the community, and helping them become better water stewards while not imperiling the economy benefits everyone. - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL INDUSTRIAL ALL CII Indoor Outdoor - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 HOSPITAL HOTEL OR MOTEL INDUSTRY RESTAURANT SCHOOL/CHURCH TRIPLEX PARKS & GOVERNMENT MISCELLANEOUS FOURPLEX APARTMENT DUPLEX BUSINESS SINGLE RESIDENCE Indoor Outdoor FIGURE 2-13 VOLUME OF USE BY LOCATION OF USE AND CLASSIFICATION (AF/YEAR FIGURE 2-14 VOLUME OF USE BY LOCATION AND SUB-CLASSIFICATION (AF/YEAR) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 2-11 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO Summary of Per Capita Use by Classification (Table 2-6 and Figure 2-15). Table 2-6 and Figure 2-15 summarize use by classification on a per capita basis as requested in the State’s guidelines for conservation plans. Results are shown for 2024 water use. It should be noted that the per capita calculation has been based on the same equivalent population as used for generating Figure 2-1. As a result, while the figure and table are consistent with previous per capita calculations and may be useful in visualizing the ratio of use between the various classifications, they should not be interpreted as an accurate calculation of per person water use on a residential basis. Additionally, the range of characteristics within the commercial and industrial classifications is far greater than those within other classifications, making evaluations of per capita use by classification dubious in value. For example, commercial classifications contain small clothing boutiques (low water users) and large, many-tabled restaurants (high water users). Oil refineries are included in the industrial classification (high water user), but so are retail shipping warehouses (low water users). Even the residential classification is diverse, including single-family homes and multistory apartments with hundreds of units. Advances in metering technology, improvements in data and records keeping, and continued CII and WaterMAPS™ analysis will refine the data and bring more relevance to this particular statistical report. TABLE 2-6 2024 PER CAPITA WATER USE BY CLASSIFICATION (GPD) Residential 12 Commercial Institutional Industrial Total Indoor 28 41 4 8 82 Outdoor 47 33 15 2 97 Total 76 74 19 10 179 12 It should be noted that values in this table are based on the State of Utah’s methodology for calculating per capita water use (use per category divided by total permanent population). As a result, calculations may appear different than those in the Historical Use and Demand chapters. For example, the reported “Residential” indoor use of 28 gpcd includes single-family household indoor use divided by the total population. The State’s methodology separates single -family residential from apartments and other multiunit housing, placing these classifications in the “Commercial” category. This can result in an underrepresentation of the actual indoor use of residential customers. For purposes of this plan, indoor use of residents is 54 gpcd, and includes single family, duplex, triplex, and multiunit customers. Residential Indoor, 28 Residential Outdoor, 47 Commercial Indoor, 41 Commercial Outdoor, 33 Institutional Indoor, 4 Institutional Outdoor, 15 Industrial Indoor, 8 Industrial Outdoor, 2 Total All Classifications = 179 gpd FIGURE 2-15 PER CAPITA WATER USE BY CLASSIFICATION (GPD) FIGURE 2-15 PER CAPITA WATER USE BY CLASSIFICATION (GPD) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 2-12 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO 2.6 C ONSERVATION P ROGRESS TO D ATE Significant progress has been made in improved efficiencies and conservation over the last two decades. While detailed records are not available for 2000, detailed analysis of water use patterns for each subsequent year was conducted. To evaluate where and how water was conserved, the water use patterns from 2001 have been compared to water use patterns over the 2022-24 period. The results are shown in Figures 2-15 through 2-18. Monthly Conservation Averaged Across Connections (Figure 2-16). Figure 2-16 shows estimated indoor and outdoor water use in the service area over the course of the year for both recent (average of 2022-24) and historical (2001 and 2016-18) water use patterns. As can be seen in the figure, the community has done an excellent job in saving water both indoors and outdoors and throughout recent years. This seems to indicate that the conservation program and messaging has been helpful in increasing overall awareness of the value of water, the importance of conservation, and implementing effective strategies for accomplishing sustained water use reductions. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Mo n t h l y U s e P e r C o n n e c t i o n ( c c f ) 2022-24 Total Use 2022-24 Indoor Use 2001 Total Use 2001 Indoor Use 2016-18 Indoor Use 2016-18 Total Use FIGURE 2-16 MONTHLY CONSERVATION, AVERAGE OF ALL CONNECTIONS FIGURE 2-16 MONTHLY CONSERVATION, AVERAGE OF ALL CONNECTIONS SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 2-13 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO Percent Water Use Reduction by Classification (Figure 2-17). Figure 2- 17 shows the percent reductions by customer classification since 2001. These results have been calculated based on the reduction in water sales per connection. A few interesting trends can be observed in this figure: i. Conventional thinking has been that conservation will need to come primarily from outdoor water use. However, the percent savings between estimated indoor and outdoor water since 2001 is about the same. There is slightly more savings outdoors than indoors (28.4% vs. 24.2%), but the difference is less than might have been expected. ii. Commercial savings are a little less than half of the savings observed for residential customers since 2001. This does not necessarily indicate that commercial customers have not reduced water use appropriately. Further analysis is required to determine the capacity to reduce water use based on current practices and technologies. Continuing efforts to disaggregate water use within all CII classifications will improve understanding of water use patterns and enhance programing opportunities. iii. Institutional customers have seen the largest reduction in total use of all classifications. This demonstrates the efforts of large property managers in golf, parks, and other open spaces to reduce water use. While there is always more to do, this means institutional users have taken a good first step in conserving water on its properties. iv. Industrial customers appear to be showing an increase in indoor water use since 2001. In considering this result, it should be emphasized that the values reported here are based on sales per connection. While it is possible that per-connection water use has increased since 2001, it is also possible that new industrial connections have been added since 2001, accounting for the apparent increase in average use per connection. Ideally, these results could be presented in a format that only looked at water used by industrial customers that existed in 2001 to see how their actual water use has changed. Unfortunately, the data does not exist to make this distinction. Work is on-going to clarify water use within this classification. For more detailed information, refer to Chapter 4. Industrial customers, however, had the greatest reduction in outdoor use between classifications. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Total Indoor Outdoor FIGURE 2-17 PERCENT REDUCTION SINCE 2001 BY CLASSIFICATION FIGURE 2-17 PERCENT REDUCTION SINCE 2001 BY CLASSIFICATION SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 2-14 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO Percent of Water Use Reduction by Sub-Classification (Figure 2-18). Figure 2-18 shows the percent of water use reduction by sub-classification. This provides some additional detail regarding where reductions in per connection water use have occurred since 2001. Similar to what was observed for industrial customers in Figure 2-16, the “negative savings” observed for hospitals, hotels, and apartments are not believed to be per capita increases in water use, but a function of an increase in the number of connections or expansion in service within these sub-classifications since 2001. The conservation reported for indoor use in the miscellaneous classification may not be representative of actual savings, but a function of change in how customers in this classification are being reassigned to other classifications. As work continues in CII analysis, understanding of water use patterns and actual use reductions will improve. Volume Water Use Reduction by Classification (Figure 2-19). Figure 2-19 shows the estimated volume of water saved each year by each customer classification as a result of conservation. These results are an approximation of water volume use reductions as calculated by multiplying the percent reduction per connection by the average use per connection. As a result, it continues to reflect the same problem with industrial use as noted previously. However, it does provide some indication of the magnitude of reductions in various areas. As can be seen in Figure 2-19, use reductions outdoors accounts for slightly more than 54% of the total reduction. While the percent reduction of indoor use to outdoor use is comparatively similar (as noted previously), the larger total volume of water used outdoors results in a greater volume of conservation reductions. A similar conclusion can be made regarding residential water use reductions. About two-thirds of the total decrease in use is derived from residential customers. This is not because residential customers are saving at substantially higher rates, but simply because they, as a classification, use more water than other classifications. Research being conducted utilizing WaterMAPSTM, the CII Analytics Tool, and other methodologies will help to increase understanding of water use, demand reduction, and capacity to conserve across all classifications. See Chapter 4: Water Conservation Practices for program details. -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Total Indoor Outdoor - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL INDUSTRIAL ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL TOTAL -ALL CATEGORIES Indoor Outdoor FIGURE 2-19 VOLUMES OF CONSERVATION SINCE 2001 BY LOCATION OF USE AND CLASSIFICATION (AF/YEAR) FIGURE 2-19 VOLUMES OF CONSERVATION SINCE 2001 BY LOCATION OF USE AND CLASSIFICATION (AF/YEAR) FIGURE 2-18 PERCENT REDUCTION SINCE 2001 BY CLASSIFICATION FIGURE 2-18 PERCENT REDUCTION SINCE 2001 BY CLASSIFICATION SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 2-15 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO Peak Day Water Use Reduction (Figure 2-20). All of the previous figures have focused on reductions in the volume of water used annually. However, significant strides have been made in reducing peak demands. This is important because most of the water infrastructure facilities must be sized to meet peak demands. Reducing these demands translates to significant savings for the service area. In system-wide numbers, peak day demand has been reduced from 216.3 million gallons per day (mgd) to 160.0 mgd in 2024. This is a reduction of 26 percent. While this is impressive in itself, the reduction is even greater when growth is taken into account. If peak day demand is converted into a per capita value following the same procedure described for total annual demands (see description of Figure 2-1), the observed reduction increases to 38 percent. Figure 2-20 shows how the reduction in per capita peak demand has occurred over time. Water savings associated with this reduction in demand are sizable, as identified in the recently completed storage and conveyance plan. When this new plan13 (using updated demand projections with conservation) is compared to the previous plan14 (based on historical demands without conservation), several projects are now able to be eliminated or decreased in size or scope because of reduced peak demands. Estimated savings associated with downsized or eliminated conveyance project resulting from recent and projected conservation exceed $20 million.15 When considering avoided costs of water supply, storage, and conveyance, the cumulative cost savings associated with water conservation between 2000 and 2024 is approximately $420 million (see Appendix P). 13 Salt Lake City Water Storage and Conveyance Plan, BC&A, 2020 14 Major Conveyance Study, BC&A, January 2007 15 Based on elimination or downsizing of projects identified in the 2007 Major Conveyance Study that are no longer needed. This includes elimination of the 4500 South Transmission Main and Storage Tank (Project 3.3B), 7800 South Low Improvements (Projects 3.6A, 3.6B, 3.6C, and 3.12B), and adjustments to the size of the East-West Aqueduct (Projects 3.1A and 3.1B). 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Us e P e r C a p i t a ( g p c d ) FIGURE 2-20 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES PER CAPITA PEAK DAY WATER USE (GPD) FIGURE 2-20 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES PER CAPITA PEAK DAY WATER USE (GPD) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-1 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE DRAFT CHAPTER THREE: CONSERVATION GOALS 3.0 I NTRODUCTION As discussed in Chapter 1, conservation is an essential part of water resource planning to meet the future water needs of its community. The purpose of this chapter is to articulate and describe the goals for conservation that will: • Keep on track to meet its long-term water supply needs. • Facilitate efforts to increase resource and system resilience in the face of identified risks, including climate change. • Encourage the continued wise use of an important limited resource; and • Be consistent with conservation goals established by the State, Central Utah Project, Alliance for Water Efficiency, US-Environmental Protection Agency, and this plan. This chapter highlights historical and proposed goals from various sources that are relevant to current conservation planning efforts. Included are discussions of specific goals articulated in the Governor’s Water Conservation Goal, the Utah Lake System contract with the Central Utah Project, and the recently updated State Regional Conservation Goals. Also included is a discussion of the relationship between conservation goals and the ongoing need to support efforts to protect Great Salt Lake. Unless explicitly stated, all goals are listed in terms of customer sales. Achievements towards programmatic goals are also discussed in this chapter, such as those outlined in the Governor’s Strategic Water Plan, American Water Works Association (AWWA) G-480 Checklist, Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) Landscape Guidelines, and the State Division of Water Resources Water Conservation Plan Checklist. Additionally, the Appendices contain these guidelines and goals in checklist format. Central to this chapter and the discussions contained are these newly developed established conservation goals. These goals have been developed based on outcomes of the Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan and reflect current and future projections of both supply and demand within the service area. While not identical to the State Regional Goals, these goals meet or SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-2 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE exceed these regional goals and are more in keeping with our own system, resources, and characteristics. 3.1 C ONSERVATION G OALS 3.1.1 GOVERNOR’S 2001 STATEWIDE WATER CONSERVATION GOAL In 2001, Governor Mike Leavitt published a statewide conservation goal to reduce per capita water use by 25 percent (as compared to water use from the benchmark year of 2000). Governor Gary Herbert later enhanced that goal by reducing the timeline to be met by 2025. While the conservation goals over the years have been guided by supply and demand, as well as climate and drought concerns, the Governor’s Statewide Goal has been used as a benchmark for measuring program achievements. Additionally, the statewide goals were incorporated into the water supply plan as part of the SLCDPU’s 2007 Major Conveyance Study. As documented in Chapter 2, water users within the service area have thus far stayed significantly ahead of this goal in its efforts to reduce water use. 3.1.2 CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT CONSERVATION AGREEMENT (UTAH LAKE SYSTEM CONSERVATION GOALS) As part of its request for water from the Utah Lake System (ULS), the City has entered into an agreement (through Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy) with Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) to achieve a minimum level of conservation. This conservation requirement specified a reduction in per capita water use (from year 2000 levels) of 12.5 percent by 2020 and 25 percent by 2050. While this is an important goal from a contractual standpoint, it has not been the driver of conserva tion programming goals as internal conservation goals have been more aggressive. However, achieving this goal results in avoided additional cost on water purchased through these agreements, adding to the value of the conservation programming beyond the achievement of water use reduction goals. 3.1.3 RECOMMENDED STATE WATER STRATEGY, JULY 2017 In 2013, Governor Gary Herbert convened a group of stakeholders with extensive backgrounds to form the State Water Strategy Advisory Team. Out of this process, a diverse group of water practitioners, advocates, and academics were asked to help devise a state water strategic plan. Stephanie Duer, the City’s water conservation manager, participated in this process, representing both Salt Lake City specifically, and municipal interests in general. The group examined a range of issues, including, but not limited to conservation, competing demands on water, the roles of technology and science, how law and policy affect our relationship with water, and sustainability and the environment. The outcome of this process is the Recommended State Water Strategy, published in 2017. Strategies were organized into eleven categories, with the first being the role of conservation in supporting a sustained water supply. Conservation, demand management, demand reduction, improvements in efficiencies, and the role of technology and science also appear in each of the other ten strategies. Though this strategic plan does not articulate specific goals, it does outline ideas and approaches to enhancing and building on conservation efforts. Those strategies pertaining most closely to urban demand management and conservation have been collected and organized in a list in the appendices. These strategies were tracked as part of the development of this plan a nd have also been integrated into day-to-day programming as appropriate. 3.1.4 UTAH’S REGIONAL M&I WATER CONSERVATION GOALS, NOVEMBER 2019 AND JUNE 2025 Over the last several years, efforts have been made to better understand how the State of Utah manages water conservation efforts in the state, including the process for identifying and assigning water use reduction goals. These efforts include a legislative audit completed in 2015 and the Recommended State Water Strategy completed in 2017 by the Governor’s Water Strategy Advisory Team (GSWAT) (see Section 3.1.3). One of the major conclusions of both documents was the need to update the State’s conservation goal to make it more regionally appropriate and relevant. One of the limitations of the historical statewide water conservation goal is that it failed to integrate the effects of regional climate, local and discrete supply, and water use pattern differences. Utah is a large state with diverse terrain, climates, populations, development patterns, and attitudes that affect what water is available and how it is used. With this in mind, the State commissioned a study to reevaluate the statewide conservation goal, and to establish water conservation goals that reflect each region’s characteristics, challenges, and SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-3 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE opportunities as related to water. The result is Utah’s Regional M&I Water Conservation Goals. The goals established in the Utah’s Regional M&I Water Conservation Goals are shown in Figure 3-1.16 For the Salt Lake region (consisting of Salt Lake and Tooele Counties), the new goal was to reduce per capita water use to 187 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), an additional 11% reduction from the average use in the region observed in 2015. In 2025 (during the preparation of this plan), the Division of Water Resources presented a few modifications to this goal. The major proposed changes included moving from 2015 as a baseline to the average of 2015 to 2019 and changing the goal for a specific gpcd value for each region to a percentage reduction to be applied evenly to all entities. In other words, the new regional goal for SLCDPU would be an 11% reduction from their average water use from 2015 to 2019. While not official “goals”, the study also identifies some projected future levels of conservation. This includes achieving a cumulative 15% reduction in use by 2045 and 19% by 2065. The existing SLCDPU service area is contained in the Salt Lake Region, which also includes all of Salt Lake and Tooele Counties. 16 Utah’s Regional M&I Water Conservation Goals. Utah Division of Water Resources. November 2019. FIGURE 3-1 UTAH’S REGIONAL M&I WATER CONSERVATION GOALS F IGURE 3 -11 C II M EAN L IR F IGURE 3 -1 U TAH ’S R EGIONAL M&I W ATER C ONSERVATION G OALS F IGURE 3 -11 C II M EAN L IR F IGURE 3 -12F IGURE 3 -11 C II M EAN L IR F IGURE 3 -1 U TAH ’S R EGIONAL M&I W ATER C ONSERVATION G OALS F IGURE 3 -11 C II M EAN L IR F IGURE 3 -1 U TAH ’S R EGIONAL M&I W ATER C ONSERVATION G OALS SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-4 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE 3.1.5 WATER CONSERVATION AND GREAT SALT LAKE Salt Lake City is committed to doing what it can to support efforts to support and restore Great Salt Lake. As part of that effort, additional conservation scenarios are being evaluated that might achieve goals beyond those stated in Chapter 3. Part of this evaluation is the role of depletion in achieving additional water savings for Great Salt Lake. This task has been added to ongoing research relating to refining projected demand reductions (see Table 4-6, R-17). 3.1.6 SALT LAKE CITY WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND MASTER PLAN CONSERVATION GOALS As part of its water supply and demand study, a number of conservation scenarios were considered. These scenarios parallel similar scenarios developed for the State’s regional conservation goals. Ultimately, a scenario was selected (referred to as Scenario 2 in the Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan)17 that both achieves the goal of continuing to reliably supply water for long-term needs and is slightly more aggressive than the new state regional goals. This scenario is the new conservation goal moving forward. 3.1.7 COMPARISON OF CONSERVATION GOALS Historical and proposed water conservation goals are summarized and compared in Figure 3-2. All values are shown in terms of per capita water use, based on equivalent population adjusted for employment (see Chapter 2). As shown in the figure, the proposed conservation goal for this plan is consistent wit h the State’s regional conservation goals and meets or exceeds all other historical goals. Included in the figure is also the observed per capita water use in the service area. From the figure, it can be seen that cu stomers within the service area are meeting or exceeding all of its previously established goals. There was a slight rebound in per capita water use last year. Even with the excellent results achieved to date, this emphasizes the need for continued and increased efforts in the promotion of long-term conservation, including enhanced education and outreach efforts. 17 Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan, page 2-11 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 Pe r C a p i t a W a t e r U s e ( g p c d ) Year Metered Per Capita ULS Conservation Goal (12.5% reduction by 2020, Trend Line of Actual Historic State Conservation Goal (25% reduction by 2025) New City Conservation Goal in Supply and Demand Master Plan (Scenario 2) Utah's Regional Conservation Goal 11% by 2030 Future Regional Conservation Goal Projections 15% by 2040 19% by 2065 FIGURE 3-2 SLCDPU SERVICE AREA CONSERVATION TREND SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-5 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE 3.2 D ETAILS OF SLCDPU C ONSERVATION G OALS While an overall conservation goal is an important first step in planning, it will be difficult to turn the goal into reality unless we understand the individual components of the goal, that is, who is using the water, and how and when they are using it. The purpose of this section is to provide additional information regarding the conservation goals so that more detailed plans can be developed to achieve discreet components of the goal. 3.2.1 OVERALL CONSERVATION GOAL For the planning window of the Salt Lake City Supply and Demand Master Plan, the long-term conservation goal can be expressed in the following metrics summarized in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2. TABLE 3-1 LONG-TERM CONSERVATION GOALS EXPRESSED AS PER CAPITA USE (GALLONS SALES PER DAY)18 2015-19 SLCDPU Observed Regional M&I Conservation Goal for 2024 2022-24 SLCDPU Observed Utah’s Regional M&I Goal Long- term (2065) SLCDPU Long-term Goal (2060) 195 182 171 158 146 TABLE 3-2 PERCENT REDUCTION IN PER CAPITA SALES TO ACHIEVE LONG-TERM GOALS State Regional Long- term Goal from 2015-29 Observed (2065) SLCDPU Historic Long- term Goal from 2015-19 Observed (2060) SLCDPU Long-term Goal from 2022-24 Actual 19.0%19 25.1% 14.6% As can be seen in the tables, long-term goals exceed Utah’s Regional M&I Conservation Goals for the Salt Lake region. 18 Based on equivalent population adjusted for employment as described in Chapter 2. 3.2.2 CONSERVATION GOAL BY CUSTOMER CLASSIFICATION As a starting point, it is useful to define the water use characteristics that will need to be achieved in order to reach long-term water use reduction goals. Changes in per capita water demands may result from a number of factors, not all of which are the result of more prudent water use. For example, increases in density (and the corresponding decrease in average lot size) may significantly decrease per capita outdoor water use, even if water use patterns do not otherwise change. Economic growth and socio-economic conditions, improvements in fixture and appliance efficiency, and climate change are examples of other factors that may, for better or worse, affect demand. To better measure where savings will be derived through conservation activities, we need first understand the who and how of water use. Besides the factors mentioned above, it is also helpful to examine water use by grouping customers together that exhibit similar characteristics, demographics, or water use behaviors. For example, homeowners use water differently than do businesses, and both have water use patterns different from schools. By grouping water users into classifications with similar characteristics, we can improve water use analysis and enhance programing to achieve demand reduction. Setting conservation goals for water use reduction in specific water use areas will enhance our opportunities to successfully achieve our conservation goals. For conservation planning purposes, customers have been disaggregated into the primary classifications of residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial, which are the same classifications used in Chapter 2 to facilitate analysis of historical water use. These groups have been further divided into subclassifications (see Section 2.3). 19 State Regional Goals measured as reduction from average 2015 to 2019 water use. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-6 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE The analysis of historical use and projected future growth presented in Chapter 2 is used here to estimate how much savings may come from each classification and subclassification based on the following general assumptions: • Residential indoor water use to be reduced to 49 gpcd • Outdoor water use to be reduced to 22.8 inches average irrigation • CII indoor reduction to be determined For Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional customers (CII), it has been assumed that outdoor conservation will occur at the same rate as in the residential classification, but indoor water use will be reduced in an amount equal to approximately 50 percent of the reduction observed in residential use.20 This is based on maintaining the same ratio of conservation between residential and non-residential classifications as observed in the past (see Chapter 2). As work continues in evaluating water use in CII sectors, enhanced understanding of disaggregated water use patterns will facilitate establishment of more meaningful goals within the CII sector. For more details, see Chapter 4. Based on these assumptions, projected conservation by classification and season of use is summarized in Figures 3-3 through 3-5. Additional Conservation Throughout the Year (Figure 3 -3). Figure 3-3 shows current indoor and outdoor water use over the course of the year, as well as projected demand reductions needed to attain the planned long -term conservation goal. As seen in the figure, additional conservation is needed both indoors and outdoors, as well as throughout the course of the year. 20 The exception to this is the apartment sub-classification where it has been assumed that indoor water savings will be the same as residential. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Mo n t h l y U s e P e r C o n n e c t i o n ( c c f ) 2022-24 Total Use 2022-24 Indoor Use Total Use - Conservation Target Indoor Use - Conservation Target FIGURE 3-3 ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION BY MONTH AVERAGED ACROSS ALL CONNECTIONS SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-7 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE Estimated Additional Conservation by Customer Classification (Figure 3-4). Figure 3-4 provides estimated, disaggregated conservation targets for both indoor and outdoor water use by customer classification. Target outdoor conservation on a percentage basis is identical for all groups. Indoor targets vary depending on the estimated potential conservation for each group based on historical average use by classification. Note that indoor industrial conservation is indicated as only about half of what is expected for other CII customers. This does not mean that industrial users are not expected to make the same effort to conserve water as other CII customers. An active conservation program among industrial customers is recommended and necessary. All industrial users are expected to look for ways in which they can improve their water use. The lower indoor conservation target at this writing is a recognition that there is a great deal of variability in the nature of industrial water use that makes the establishment of a single, aggregate reduction goal difficult. Further analysis is necessary to better understand water use patterns and the capacity to conserve within this and other CII sub- classifications. 7.0% 7.1% 7.2% 7.3% 7.4% 7.5% 7.6% 7.7% 7.8% 7.9% Combined Indoor Outdoor FIGURE 3-4 ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL PERCENTAGE TO ACHIEVE LONG-TERM GOAL BY CUSTOMER CLASSIFICATION SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-8 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE Estimated Additional Conservation Per Classification by Volume (Figure 3-5).21 In addition to considering percent reductions, it is often useful to understand the accompanying volume of water that will need to be reduced within each classification. Figure 3-5 provides perspective in this regard. As can be seen in the figure, most of the water reduction in the service area will need to come from residential customers. This is not a conscious attempt to target these customers but simply a reflection of the size of this customer classification, its current volume of use, and the estimated capacity to conserve within this classification. To aid the residential customers conceptualize the level of conservation proposed in this plan, Table 3-3 identifies target conservation on a per-household basis over time. Even though other customer classifications may currently appear to have lower reduction demands expressed, conservation will be needed in all areas to reach planned short- and long-term goals. Also, as understanding and evaluation of water use continues, with the accompanying analysis of the capacity to conserve, these conservation targets should be reviewed and refined. TABLE 3-3 RECOMMENDED PER-HOUSEHOLD INTERIM CONSERVATION GOALS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS 2024 10-year Long-Term Total Per-Household Use Target (gpd) 389 377 359 Per-Household Indoor Use Target (gpd) 138 134 127 Per-Household Outdoor Use Target (gpd) 251 244 232 21 Water use reduction for industrial customers will be more clearly defined as CII analysis continues. - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL INDUSTRIAL ALL CII TOTAL -ALL CATEGORIES Indoor Outdoor FIGURE 3-5 VOLUME OF CONSERVATION NEEDED TO ACHIEVE LONG-TERM GOAL BY LOCATION OF USE AND CLASSIFICATION (AF/YEAR, EXISTING CUSTOMERS) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-9 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE 3.2.3 CONSERVATION GOALS BY SUB-CLASSIFICATION As with analysis of historical water use, conservation goals may also be divided into sub-classifications, a practice helpful in the design and implementation of conservation strategies. The result is highly targeted, efficient programs. The limitation is that there is a great deal of difference between customers within the classifications, and so a stated reduction goal that is averaged for the larger classification may not align reasonably with specific water patterns of discrete customers within a classification. For example, while the residential classification generally has similar patterns between its sub-classifications, commercial and industrial classifications are very diverse, from art galleries to grocery stores and bottling plants to oil refineries. Being aware of these variabilities highlights the need for further analysis. With these caveats in mind, projected conservation by sub -classification and season of use is summarized in Table 3-3 and Figure 3-6. Figures 3-7 through 3- 10 further highlight the differences in water use patterns across various industries. It should be emphasized that savings in each sub-classification are an estimate for planning purposes only. As additional information and insight is gained, modifications to these numbers will occur and it may be determined that more conservation is appropriate for some groups and less in others. These types of adjustments are expected and to be encouraged, as conservation programing is adjusted to optimize its program impacts while ensuring water use reduction “burdens” are shared equitably between all water customers. It should also be noted that total volumes contained in Table 3-3 are for existing customers only. As future customers are added, these new customers, whether residential or CII, will also need to contribute toward achieving water conservation goals. Although not a true “reduction” in water use (since they have not yet used water), future customers will contribute to reducing per capita water use as they implement the same improvements in water use efficiency as is being pursued by existing customers. When the efforts of both existing and future users are combined, the total volume of reduced water use (compared to existing water use patterns) is expected to be an additional 16,100 AF/year over the current annual use levels. When considering only the new reduction goal and not what has already been achieved, approximately 6,800 AF/yr of this total is expected to come from residential customers with the remaining 9,300 AF/yr. coming from CII classifications. - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 HOSPITAL HOTEL OR MOTEL INDUSTRY RESTAURANT SCHOOL/CHURCH TRIPLEX PARKS & MUNICIPALS MISCELLANEOUS FOURPLEX APARTMENT DUPLEX BUSINESS SINGLE RESIDENCE Indoor Outdoor FIGURE 3-6 VOLUME OF CONSERVATION NEEDED TO ACHIEVE LONG-TERM GOAL BY LOCATION OF USE AND SUB-CLASSIFICATION (AF/YEAR, EXISTING CUSTOMERS) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-10 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE 11,490 10,667 8,637 7,686 9,048 - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 CC F Average Median 25%75% 390 443 353 444 379 - 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 CC F Average Median 25%75% 17,154 16,902 14,082 16,863 15,467 - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 CC F Average Median 25%75% 738 679 577 760 698 - 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 CC F Average Median 25%75% FIGURE 3-7 HOTEL AND MOTEL TOTAL ANNUAL USE FIGURE 3-8 FINANCE AND INSURANCE TOTAL ANNUAL USE FIGURE 3-9 HOSPITALS TOTAL ANNUAL USE FIGURE 3-10 REAL ESTATE AND RENTAL LEASING TOTAL ANNUAL USE SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-11 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE When analyzing water use, particularly when it comes to setting water use reduction goals, it is not enough to consider total water use, or even estimates of seasonally driven water use. More relevant are estimates that consider the efficiency of that water use and if there exists a capacity to conserve. In 2019, in conjunction with USU/CWEL, the Utility launched the WaterMAPS™ program. The WaterMAPS™ program integrates parcel data, land cover data, water meter data, and weather data to calculate what is called the “Landscape Irrigation Ratio (LIR).” LIR values indicate how efficiently water is being used to maintain a landscape and whether the water use is outpacing the water need. LIRs are calculated on both an annual and a monthly basis. Figure 3-11 shows the mean LIR for all evaluated CII connections; Figure 3-12 shows the LIRs by CII sub-classifications. This analysis helps to refine outdoor water conservation goals within the various CII classifications. FIGURE 3-11 CII MEAN LIR F IGURE 3 -12F IGURE 3 -11 C II M EAN L IR F IGURE 3 -12 CII LIR B Y S ERVICE C ONNECTION F IGURE 3 -12F IGURE 3 -11 C II M EAN L IR F IGURE 3 -12F IGURE 3 -11 C II M EAN L IR FIGURE 3-12 CII LIR BY SERVICE CONNECTION F IGURE 3 -12 CII LIR B Y S ERVICE C ONNECTION F IGURE 3 -12 CII LIR B Y S ERVICE C ONNECTION F IGURE 3 -12 CII LIR B Y S ERVICE C ONNECTION SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-12 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE TABLE 3-4 LONG-TERM (2060) CONSERVATION GOALS BY SUB-CLASSIFICATION Location of Use Hospital Hotel or Motel Industry Restaurant School or Church or Charity Triplex Parks & Government Miscellaneous Fourplex Apartment Duplex Business Single Residence Total Cu r r e n t An n u a l Us e (AF ) 22 Total 757 1,449 4,378 510 3,977 250 4,175 4,074 721 7,850 1,920 16,729 29,286 76,076 Indoor 441 1,134 3,611 372 1,548 168 154 987 492 5,419 1,049 8,928 10,373 34,675 Outdoor 316 316 767 138 2,429 82 4,020 3,087 229 2,431 870 7,802 18,913 41,401 Da i l y U s e P e r Co n n e c t i o n ( g p d ) Total 16,093 9,656 14,369 1,566 6,432 433 5,049 5,218 603 4,166 382 2,300 389 66,656 Indoor 9,370 7,554 11,851 1,141 2,503 292 186 1,264 412 2,876 209 1,227 138 39,022 Outdoor 6,722 2,102 2,518 425 3,929 141 4,863 3,954 191 1,290 173 1,073 251 27,634 Go a l f o r F u t u r e An n u a l U s e (A F ) Total 700 1,342 4,056 472 3,675 230 3,850 3,762 665 7,237 1,770 15,471 27,000 70,229 Indoor 409 1,051 3,348 345 1,435 155 143 915 454 4,995 967 8,278 9,562 32,057 Outdoor 292 291 707 128 2,240 75 3,707 2,847 211 2,241 802 7,193 17,438 38,172 Re q u i r e d Re d u c t i o n i n An n u a l U s e (A F ) Total 57 107 323 38 302 20 325 313 56 613 150 1,258 2,286 5,848 Indoor 32 83 263 27 113 13 11 72 38 424 82 650 811 2,618 Outdoor 25 25 60 11 189 6 314 241 18 190 68 609 1,475 3,229 % S a v i n g s Total 7.5% 7.4% 7.4% 7.4% 7.6% 7.8% 7.8% 7.7% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.5% 7.8% 7.7% Indoor 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 6.7% 7.3% 7.3% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.3% 7.8% 7.6% Outdoor 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% Sa v i n g s P e r Co n n e c t i o n (g p d ) Total 1,207 714 1,059 116 489 34 393 400 47 325 30 173 30 5,124 Indoor 682 550 863 83 182 19 14 92 32 225 16 89 11 2,947 Outdoor 524 164 196 33 306 11 379 308 15 101 14 84 20 2,155 22 For the purposes of this table, all volumes are shown for existing customers only. As future users join the system, it is ass umed that they will use water at the same reduced level as identified in the conservation goals. SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-13 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE 3.2.4 FIVE- AND TEN-YEAR CONSERVATION GOALS As noted previously, current goals are ahead of the Governor’s Water Conservation Goals and ULS Goals. With this in mind, it is not enough to meet the new Regional goals; more aggressive goals will be important–both to keep pace with long-term supply plans and to model good water resource stewardship. Correspondingly, this conservation plan has identified 5 - and 10- year conservation goals as summarized in Table 3 -4. These goals follow the overall structure of the regional goals23 but are more aggressive to account for conservation reductions already achieved and the need to both sustain those achievements and meet additional water use reductions. To assist Department personnel in identifying and implementing the practices and programming needed to meet these goals, Table 3-6 provides the estimated water use reduction need of the various classifications. This table calculates the needed reduction in total volume required to reach the goals, along with disaggregation of how this reduction might be divided between indoor and outdoor use. While it is not necessary to achieve the exact mix of conservation shown in this table, and it is certain that these volumes will need to be revised over time as more information is collected, this table provides staff with a starting point to estimate how and where conservation efforts should be initially focused. Additional break-downs of recommended residential conservation goals are also included in appendix Q. 23 Utah’s Regional M&I Water Conservation Goals for the Salt Lake Region indicates that just over half of the long-term goal should be achieved in the next ten years (234 gpcd to 201 gpcd [2030 Goal] vs. 169 gpcd [2065 long-term TABLE 3-5 RECOMMENDED INTERIM CONSERVATION GOALS 2024 5-year 10-year Long-Term Per Capita Use (gpcd) 179 174 166 146 Percent Reduction Per Capita - 2.9% 7.4% 18.7% Percent Reduction Indoors - 1.2% 3.0% 7.6% Percent Reduction Outdoors* - 1.2% 3.1% 7.8% Percent Reduction Total Use - 1.2% 3.0% 7.7% *Represents reduction in total outdoor water use for existing customers TABLE 3-6 INTERIM CONSERVATION GOALS BY CLASSIFICATION (AF/YEAR) Classification Location 5-Year 10-Year Long-term Residential Indoors 1,033 1,704 3,356 Outdoors 1,714 2,828 5,569 Total 2,746 4,532 8,926 Commercial Indoors 1,407 2,322 4,574 Outdoors 1,202 1,983 3,906 Total 2,609 4,305 8,479 Institutional Indoors 135 224 440 Outdoors 550 908 1,788 Total 686 1,131 2,228 Industrial Indoors 287 474 934 Outdoors 65 108 213 Total 353 582 1,147 All Classifications Indoors 2,863 4,724 9,305 Outdoors 3,531 5,826 11,475 Total 6,394 10,550 20,780 projection]). This same ratio has been assumed for the 10-year goal, adjusted to account both the lower initial starting point and more aggressive goal. The 5 - year goal has been similarly interpolated. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 3-14 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE 3.2.5 ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION POTENTIAL FOR GREAT SALT LAKE The Utility recognizes that more water conservation than the proposed conservation goals may be needed in the future to maintain and improve water levels of Great Salt Lake. With this perspective, two additional conservation scenarios have been developed for consideration which would reduce outdoor water demands by 10% and 15% more than the proposed conservation scenario. These additional water demand savings would allow the Utility to dedicate more water to bolstering the health of Great Salt Lake. These additional scenarios are referred to as GSL Alternative 2 and GSL Alternative 3. The resulting water reduction requirements of these alternatives are shown in Table 3 -6. Additionally, the estimated impacts to long-term water demands are shown in Figure 3-13. TABLE 3-7 LONG-TERM (2060) GSL CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVE GOALS 2024 Proposed Goal GSL Alternative 2 GSL Alternative 3 Per Capita Use (gpcd) 179 146 139 136 Indoor Per Capita Use (gpcd) 82.0 79.5 79.5 79.5 Outdoor Irrigation Application Rate (inches/yr)* 24.1 22.8 20.5 19.4 Percent Reduction Outdoors from Existing - 5.3% 15.3% 20.3% Percent Reduction from Total use - 18.7% 22.4% 24.3% *Represents the reduction in outdoor irrigation application rate 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 Pe r C a p i t a W a t e r U s e ( g p c d ) Year Metered Per Capita Water Use Trend Line of Actual Conservation New City Conservation Goal in Supply and Demand Master Plan (Scenario 2) GSL Alternative 2 GSL Alternative 3 FIGURE 3-13 CONSERVATION ALTERNATIVES SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 PAGE 4-1 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR DRAFT CHAPTER FOUR: CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, PRACTICES, AND MEASURES 4.0 I NTRODUCTION Few resources are as critical to a community’s health, well-being, or economy as water. Over the duration of its history, the Utility has protected its water resources, from critical watersheds, through urban riparian corridors, in the stormwater system, its water rights, and, of course, by practicing and promoting the wise and efficient use of water. This plan not only reflects that history of conservation; it demonstrates the continued commitment to lead through example. With reliance on research, science, and experience, and in partnership with the community, academicians, and stakeholders, the Utility strives to achieve sustainable reductions in water use to ensure a reliable and secure water supply today and for the future. For us, water is not just a r esource; it is a responsibility. The first steps in developing effective programing are to understand how much water there will be, who the customers are and how they use water, and what future water use will look like to ensure a sustained supply and fair access. Chapters One, Two, and Three address these questions, respectively. This chapter describes the programming that will help maintain a sustainable, reliable supply and achieve the goals described within this plan. Programs, and practices need to consider short- and long-term conservation goals and improve water efficiency or reduce water waste, all while maintaining quality-of-life standards. Programs must be relevant to how water is used or wasted, present meaningful opportunities for engagement to all customers, and be equitable in reach and access. Foremost, conservation programming must move attitudes, behaviors, practices, and actions in such a manner as to facilitate meaningful, measurable, and sustained conservation. This chapter focuses on the programs initiated or proposed that meet the above criteria and support and facilitate short- and long-term water use reductions that will help to meet the conservation goals outlined in Chapter 3. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-2 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.1 C ONSERVATION P LANNING P ROCESS There are many manuals, texts, and papers describing methods for successful conservation planning and programming, and this planning process has been informed by and benefited from those resources. The first steps in program planning involve assessing supply and demand, evaluating historical use, and establishing water use reduction goals, both systemwide and by the customer classifications described in previous chapters. This chapter addresses the discussion of program selection criteria, description of programs, summary of evaluation processes, and program outcomes where available. Though these steps are identified here linearly, the process is fluid and iterative, reflecting both the nature and dyn amics of planning processes, and the shifting nature of our relationship to water. 4.1.1 CRITERIA The criteria for program selection are simple; programming should: • Help to reduce water use or water waste, • Enhance water stewardship ethos, • Have community and political support, • Be equitable and fair, and • Provide a cost-benefit to the Utility and its rate payers. Though not all programs exhibit all these criteria, all programs have most of these criteria. 4.1.2 EVALUATION Program evaluation is not as straightforward as identifying a quantity of water saved. Some programs, such as outreach, may be difficult to measure in terms of gallons saved, but they bring a high degree of community benefit and add to our understanding of water. Research and metrics, on the other hand, present ample opportunity for measuring program outcomes, either through gallons saved or participants reached. Every effort was made to identify some method of measurement and provide a benchmark or metric to facilitate program evaluation; these measures are provided in Tables 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6. Other methods for evaluation include industry best practices or regulatory frameworks for plan development. The appendices include checklists that informed the development of this plan and against which it is compared. • EPA WaterSense Program • ANSI/AWWA G480 Conservation Program Operations and Management • Utah DWRe Water Conservation Master Plan Checklist • State of Utah Regional Goals 4.1.3 RESOURCE ALLOCATION A necessary step in this process is the establishment of fiscal and staffing resource budgets. Fiscal year 2025 allocations for specific program measures are included in this plan and are included in program measure focuses where available and listed in Tables 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6. More extensive future budget planning is a component of the Research and Metrics Program. Combined program budget allocation for the 2025 fiscal year is approximately $672,000. This does not include program measure funds derived from partnerships, grants, or other sources. 4.1.4 TERMINOLOGY Within this chapter and throughout the plan are various terms used to express conservation planning, goal setting, and program development. Some terms used extensively in this chapter follow: Water conservation. Those practices, techniques, and technologies that reduce water consumption, water loss, and water waste, or improve the efficiency of water use. Program. A set of conservation practices and/or measures planned to be implemented together. Practice. An action, procedure, or method that is beneficial, empirically proven, cost-effective, and widely accepted in the professional community. Measure. A device, incentive, or technology targeted at a particular type of end user or water use that, when implemented, will save water. Measures may be a component of a specific practice. For example, maintaining an irrigation system in working condition is a practice; installing high efficiency nozzles is a measure, and offering irrigation system evaluations which assist in improving practices and identify measures, such as the Water Checks, is a program. For a more extensive glossary, please refer to the Appendices. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-3 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.2 C ONSERVATION BY C ONNECTION To identify the water conservation goals expressed in this plan, projections of future reliable water supply coupled with the optimal strategy to plan to not use every drop (reserved water) were analyzed through the lens of historical water use patterns and future predicted growth. These goals are expressed in terms of millions of gallons and acre feet by classifications and subclassifications. While these expressions meet the language of various standards for conservation planning, they hardly meet the intent, which is to derive meaningful, actionable goals to guide and measure conservation programs and outcomes for actual water users. It is this level of conservation goal setting that is attempted here. Using population and economic growth indicators, the number of service connections, and historical use by classification and sub -classification, along with future supply and demand projections, we derive water use reduction goals within classifications by connection as summarized in Table 4-1. TABLE 4-1 ADDITIONAL REDUCTION IN PER CONNECTION USE NEEDED (GPD/CONNECTION) There are limitations to these calculations. As mentioned previously in earlier chapters, while the customers in some classifications are relatively uniform in use characteristics (residential), others are much more diverse (commercial and industrial). Even within the residential classifications, there are distinctions in use patterns. The differences in water use patterns between single-family homes and multi-family units, small urban and large suburban lots, owners and renters, are examples of the complexity of this task. Another limitation is that the assumption of future use based on historical practice does not account for innovations in technology that will inevitably change how water is used or measured, nor can it account for changes in population or development projections. Installation of Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) will greatly enhance our understanding of water use and waste at the connection-level, study is ongoing to determine how this technology will impact use as an influencer of behavior. Assumptions made regarding landscapeable area and irrigation requirements described in Chapter 2 (see Figure 1-2) depended on data from the year 2000. But we know from observation, turf studies conducted by the Center for Water Efficient Landscaping (USU/CWEL), as well as initial findings derived from WaterMAPS™ that those estimates are likely unnecessarily generous. As research continues, we will gain insights into the capacity to conserve in landscapes and thus inform that area of programing and also future planning scenarios. The limitations become more obvious when CII classifications are evaluated. Landscape nurseries, laundromats, and breweries are all classified as Commercial, though it is apparent they have vastly different water use profiles as well as different needs when addressing conservation. Industries range from shipping warehouses with little water demand to oil refineries, much greater consumers of water by comparison. The CII analytics project, as well as AMI will greatly enhance understanding of water use by discreet commercial and industrial profiles. Collaboration with Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE), US - EPA WaterSense, CalWEP, and others will help identify benchmarks and standards by which to evaluate these sub-classifications and enhance meaningful programming. Even with these limitations, the value of moving towards goals of this nature should not be ignored or overlooked. As understanding of water use patterns is deepened, these initial estimates for water use reduction will be refined and made even more relevant. Classification Location 5-Year 10-Year Long-term Residential Indoors 14 23 46 Outdoors 10 17 34 Total 24 40 79 Commercial Indoors 314 517 1019 Outdoors 214 353 695 Total 527 870 1714 Institutional Indoors 36 59 117 Outdoors 121 199 393 Total 157 259 509 Industrial Indoors 159 262 516 Outdoors 35 57 112 Total 193 319 628 SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-4 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.3 S OCIOECONOMIC I MPACTS OF C ONSERVATION Effective conservation programming considers the characteristics of the customers using water, both as individuals and within user classifications. While it is commonplace to consider characteristics such as “single-family residence”, “apartment”, or “restaurant”, less common is the integration of demographics and socioeconomic characteristics into the analytical and programing framework. According to Beecher, et al,24 neglecting the unintended effects of conservation programming on socioeconomic groups can result in unexpected analytical, practical, and political consequences, which may undermine desired program outcomes and have negative impacts on some customer groups. The service area is a diverse community in both its characteristics and its water needs. Understanding, and being responsive to this diversity helps to build positive relationships and ensure we meet our long-term goals of a resilient water supply. Income, household composition, housing, language and ethnicity, education, and special needs are all important characteristics that may affect water use. Businesses, too, have characteristics that need to be identified and analyzed so that programing builds partnerships and increases participation. As conservation programming is developed, understanding the relationship between water use and socioeconomic and other demographic characteristics enhances program outcomes while ensuring that the end user has the tools and support necessary to make good choices regarding water use. Additionally, this understanding also helps to identify potential barriers to participation, improving overall program design, reducing unintended consequences, and increasing participation. Conservation programing can be an effective tool to mitigate the impact of inevitable price increases across all user classifications and socioeconomic characteristics. Helping customers understand their relationship with water and providing meaningful and actionable tools and knowledge to make better choices helps customers manage water costs while also reducing their water footprint. The Utility recently completed a technical memorandum which provides an analysis of the relationship between water conservation and water rates. This analysis showed significant savings attributed to a sustained 24 Beecher, Janice A., Thomas Chesnutt, David Pekelney. Socioeconomic Impacts of Water Conservation. AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association. 2001. reduction in water use in the avoided costs associated with developing new water supply, water storage, and capital improvement costs when compared to water demand without conservation. Communicating these savings to customers may enhance general understanding of the value to conserve, as well as conveying the practical outcomes of a robust conservation program. To be successful and sustainable, everyone—every person, business, industry, school, church, government agency—needs to be engaged in reducing water demand and protecting our water resources. Effective programing should facilitate water demand reduction across all sectors and user classifications, without placing the burden for conservation on one group, or excluding any group. Striving for equity and fairness in program implementation, whether through well-thought-out pricing structures, availability of product and behavioral incentives, or access to educational materials and classes will help to remove barriers to participation, improve program reach, and avoid unintended consequences that limit access or unfairly shift the burden of conservation. In addressing these variables, conservation programming can: • Improve affordability for customers; • Enhance customer relationships; • Respond to environmental justice concerns; • Manage risk and uncertainty of water supplies; • Achieve enhanced water efficiency; • Decrease costs by reducing opportunity costs; and • Reduce water utility revenue losses. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-5 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.4 W ATER C ONSERVATION P ROGRAMS , P RACTICES , AND M EASURES Water conservation is a critical component of water resource management and should not be viewed as a temporary measure or as a public relations tool. Effective water conservation can sustain and extend water supplies; alleviate infrastructure capacity issues; mitigate impacts to supply and demand due to weather and climate variability; address affordability; and foster a sense of community-shared stewardship. To achieve this, conservation programming needs to provide the necessary tools to achieve and sustain these effects, and therefore, needs to fully address the how, who, when, and where of water use. At the core of this conservation plan are the programs, practices, and measures supported and funded through the water conservation program. For conservation programming to achieve and sustain the necessary water use reductions, it needs to address the diverse nature of water use within the service area. To ensure programming reflects the complexity of the water infrastructure and the diversity of end users, practices have been organized into five program focuses: Outreach, Economics, Utility Operations, Law and Policy, and Research and Metrics. Within each of these programs is a selection of practices and measures that meet the criteria identified on page 4.2. Some, like lawn watering guides and Water Check, have been active since the conservation program was created in June 2001. Other practices, such as WaterMAPS™, the CII analytics tool, and SLC TurfTrade are more recent and still evolving. There are also practices new to the program planned for the coming years, including landscape assessments and elementary school curricula. Though the practices are varied, they all meet some, if not all the criteria of providing targeted, meaningful, and equitable programing that will facilitate meeting and sustaining short- and long-term water conservation goals. 4.4.1 PROGRAMS The water conservation program is comprised of dozens of practices and measures organized into one of five programs: Outreach. Education, information, and community engagement are how we inform and encourage the adoption of practices, behaviors, and technologies that reduce water use and water waste. Sometimes considered “soft” practices, due in part to the difficulty of isolating and quantifying practice outcomes and effectiveness, none the less, these practices are typically simple to enact and have limited barriers to customer participation. This program focuses on conveying information and engaging in community dialogue that facilitates the meeting of conservation goals. And though difficult to measure, they are informed by the outcomes of the Research & Metrics program and so are based in actionable science. Economic. The price of water is an important mechanism through which to convey the value of water. Though, to clarify, it is not merely the rate at which water is charged, but also the other information that is conveyed in a water bill. Even more fundamentally, that meters are read, and bills are generated and SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-6 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR provided in a timely manner also help to inform the customer and convey the value of this limited resource. There are other ways, too, that economics can play a role in water conservation. Illustrating avoided costs can also be an incentive to reduce water use, whether it is the avoided costs associated with water use in a higher tier, or the avoided costs of not having to develop new sources of water. More direct incentives, in the form of rebates, can also help to reduce water use and offer the added benefit of potentially providing measurable outcomes. Utility Operations. To be a leader in water conservation, it is not enough to have a plan, but to integrate that plan into daily operations, maintenance, and capital programs. This program focuses on identifying and implementing opportunities to integrate conservation best practices into all aspects of department functions. From landscape management to construction of stormwater wetlands and street-side biofiltration; water supply planning to distribution system operations, conservation can and does support broader Department functions. Law & Policy. Salt Lake City has landscape code provisions that proactively encourage the implementation of best practices in landscapes; periodic review of these provisions ensures that the City continues to meet the inten tion of these provisions. Currently lacking are codes that clearly state water use prohibitions. Though codes exist that allow the regulation of water use, the codes as currently written do not clearly address water waste, so review will facilitate addressing this lack. There are also codes that support a variety of planning processes, including conservation and drought planning. City policy can also support conservation efforts by addressing the adoption of actions internally to City departments and divisions which support conservation. Ongoing review of City codes and policies that support conservation is an iterative process that is most successful when other City stakeholders are engaged in partnership, as demonstrated in the City’s participation of Growi ng Water Smart, which still brings together Planning, Utility, and other City staff to more fully integrate water and planning. Research and Metrics. Fundamental to the implementation and effectiveness of conservation programming is the adoption of programs that provide the necessary outcomes. Science, research, and analytics are at the core of conservation programming, ensuring that all other programs and practices have a basis in knowledge, research, and science. 4.4.2 PRACTICES AND MEASURES Within each program is a selection of practices and measures designed to facilitate the achievement of short- and long-term water conservation goals. These practices and measures are directed at specific end users to address various types of water use. They are designed to be implemented alone or in combination and all meet one or more of the identified criteria. For practice and measure details, see the corresponding practice tables. 4.4.3 PROGRAM TABLES Each practice and measure are listed in one of the following tables (Tables 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6), with select practices receiving more detailed coverage in section focuses. Within the tables, practices are generally described by title, target audience, practice timeline, project cost, metric or measurement, and partnership. Number (No.). Each practice is assigned a number within its program. This is useful when identifying practices relevant to specific documents, grant applications, and similar circumstances where space constraints limit the full title of description of a practice. Practice Title. The name of the practice, which is sometimes broadly descriptive, as in the case of “Brochures,” and sometimes specific to a single practice, such as “WaterMAPS™” customer reports. Effort has been made to keep the names descriptive and brief. Classification. Not all practices are for every customer. This column organizes and identifies practices by classification. These classifications correspond to the classifications described and used throughout this plan. They include Residential (Res), Industrial (Ind), Commercial (Com), and Institutional (Inst). (See Figure 2 - 2). Brief Description. Generally, an expansion on the practice title or a broader, though short, description. Practice Timeline. Timeline details may range from a single event, for instance, the development of a study or plan, to ongoing practices such as meter replacement or monthly billing. “Active” column indicators include “√’ (Active), “ID” (In Development), TBD (To Be Determined), or NA (Not Applicable or Not Active). Implementation indicates when the practice was active or is planned to be active. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-7 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Cost/Funding. Costs mostly reflect current budget allocations or future planned allocation estimates. Costs over the practice lifetime have not been calculated, unless noted. In some cases, funding has been provided in the form of grants, memorandum of understanding, or as a component of partnership, which have been noted accordingly. The development of recommended five- and ten-year budgets is a component of the Research and Metrics program and is currently underway. Reach/Metrics. Measuring practice effectiveness helps determine if resources (staff time or budget) are being allocated in a manner that supports program goals or allocated sufficiently to ensure practice success. Some of these measures are soft, such as the number of visitors to a garden, brochures mailed, website visits; some are hard, as in the number of Water Checks performed, metered water use reduction, or commercial audits completed. Not all programs should be measured by the same metric; for one thing, that isn’t practical or pragmatic. A demonstration garden may serve multiple purposes but how do you measure how much water has been saved due to its existence? How much water is saved when schoolrooms are visited, or when phone calls are answered? This is where the measurement of reach helps to inform practice evaluation: how many visitors, how many classrooms, how many brochures. These practices bring value, even if the measure of success is knowing the reach, as they have value in the relationships built, the assistance provided, and opportunity for inspiration. Partnerships. The Utility has been fully vested in conservation programing for decades. And while Utility staff have accomplished a great deal towards implementing conservation programs, partnerships have been instrumental to the ongoing success and will continue in importance as work towards achieving current and future water use reduction goals continues. Some partnerships are more singular and tied to specific practices, such as the contract with Utah State University Climate Center to operate and maintain research quality weather stations within our service area. Other partnerships revolve around funding, particularly grants, as is the case of drought planning and the Bureau of Reclamation. Other partnerships are ongoing, such as the work with CUWCD and DWRe pertaining to CII studies. Some partnerships, such as the one with Utah State University (USU), have relevance beyond the scope of specific practices, informing conservation efforts across the reach of programing and providing invaluable collaboration. However, th e most valued partner is the community; the people, businesses, industry, and institutions served who do the work of saving water every day. Savings. Ideally, every conservation practice or measure has demonstrable water savings. This is, however, difficult to assess for most practices. Improvements in metering technology and the integration of GIS/IT technologies in conservation programing will improve this moving ahead. In the meantime, where possible, historical and projected water savings have been provided. Not every practice can be described with all these details, but every effort has been made to provide as much detail as possible within these pages. Where details are either not available or not relevant, it has been so indicated. For instance, some programs have no direct cost, such as developing internal City department conservation plans. In other cases, practice metrics may be difficult to determine; how, for instance, do we measure the impact of a garden or brochure? Within each program there are summaries of select practices and measures, intended to offer more detail, including timeline, budget, and desired outcomes. These select practices represent current and proposed programming that is reflective of short- and long-term conservation goals, as well as the needs and interests of water customers across all classifications. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-8 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.5 O UTREACH Education and public outreach are a necessary component of successful conservation programing. Though the types of programing vary, they share the common attributes of informing and educating customers of the needs and benefits of conservation; the risks to the community and environment in not conserving; and actions to take to achieve water conservation goals. Outreach initiatives are characterized as being customer-focused, low-input programs with an emphasis on education and information to motivate changes by either adopting or abandoning general or specific practices. These initiatives are thought of as “soft programs,” in that they depend on behavioral changes and not changes to fixtures or infrastructure. Programs can generally be organized by those designed to change behavior or to encourage the adoption of new methodologies and techniques. Outreach also includes education and messaging campaigns, designed to provide actionable, proven techniques and methods for reducing water use. Such campaigns include “Never Waste,” “Rain On/Sprinklers Off,” and “7 Gallon Challenge,” to name a few. And while actual water savings may be difficult to measure, metrics of site visits, shares, and “likes” helps us know if the messaging is on track. Outreach practices also create opportunities for reciprocal, iterative dialogue, leading to community engagement and acceptance, critical for program success and the achievement of short- and long-term conservation goals. It is in classroom settings, community gatherings, and social media that we, as practitioners, can hear and learn from the customers for whom these programs are designed, to make programming accessible, meaningful, and actionable. Outreach isn’t “just talk.” The Water Check program provides site-specific guidance to assist property managers or homeowners in improving irrigation efficiency. WaterMAPSTM delivers relatable and actionable information to property owners to enhance understanding of the relationship between landscape characteristics and water need. Providing actionable information commercial, industrial, and institutional customers will enhan ce engagement by those sectors in conservation efforts and deliver meaningful resul ts in demand reduction. Residential leak detection programs inform homeowners of indoor water loss, while delivering messages of the importance of managing all water use and waste. Learning labs offer education, advice, and guidance in improving landscape practices, leak detection and repair, and other areas of conservation. The following are details of select conservation programs which reflect short- and long- term goals as outlined in Chapter 3 and address community feedback on existing programming. FIVE -YEAR FOCUS Outreach Programs •Demonstration Gardens and slcgardenwise.com •Public Access Cloud -based Portals •Learning Labs •School Programs •Water Week SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-9 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.5.1 DEMONSTRATION GARDENS AND SLCGARDENWISE.COM [0-3, 0-4, 0-5] Timeline: 2005 to present 2025 Budget: $14,500 Partners: TBD Reach: Across all customer classifications Savings/Metric: Number of visitors; events While it may be difficult to measure the worth of public gardens, water conservation gardens bring value to conservation programming as well as to the neighborhoods where gardens reside. Offering information, education, and inspiration of best practices in landscaping methods and plant selection, demonstration gardens provide self-directed as well as led experiences. These spaces also create opportunities for volunteering, bringing value to the program and making learning a hands-on experience. Demonstration gardens also create opportunities to bring value to neighborhoods by providing beautiful and sustainably managed landscapes to enjoy and inspire. For example, the 900 South Stormwater Wetland and Demonstration Garden is located along a former storm drain ditch and abandoned railroad corridor. The conversion of this space into a stormwater wetland and conservation demonstration garden created multiple values for the City and the neighborhood. The Greater Avenues Conservation Garden sits on what was once an abandoned lot in the Avenues neighborhood. Its location adjacent to urban -wildland interface areas presented an opportunity to demonstrate not only water -wise techniques, but also how site sensitive landscaping can support wildlife and community aesthetic values. And lest there is concern that a formerly un - watered site is now receiving previously undelivered resources; Greater Avenues Garden has not been irrigated since 2015. As enjoyable as actual demonstration gardens can be, weather or other impediments may discourage visitors. Learning opportunities may also be limited as it is impossible to include every plant or incorporate multiple design concepts. Slcgardenwise.com provides an alternative visitor experience, offering examples of water-wise gardens from throughout the service area. Virtual tours, landscape solutions, and an extensive and locally developed plant database makes slcgardenwise the next best thing to actual garden tours. Future focus for the demonstration gardens and slcgardenwise is to upgrade landscape features and irrigation systems, update learning materials, and create on-site learning opportunities. www.SLCgardenwise is scheduled and budgeted for an update in the current fiscal year. This will include updated landscapes, expanded plant data base, and enhanced functionality. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-10 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.5.2 PUBLIC ACCESS, CLOUD-BASED PORTALS [0-17] Timeline: 2018 - current Budget: TBD Partners: Utah State University, EWIG Reach: Residential and CII customers Savings/Metrics: Number of visitors; change in individual and average LIR Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), Water Checks, WaterMAPS TM, and CII Analytics are providing data that not only informs conservation programming but offers opportunities to provide timely and action able information directly to water customers. Older methods of communicating information, such as brochures and even web-based communication, are giving way to up-to-the- moment, customer-targeted information via cloud-based communications applications. Water Checks, a well-established, proven program, has benefited from recent technological advances. With funds received through Extension Water Initiative Grants (EWIG), USU, conservation programming, and Department GIS/IT staff, Water Check reporting added cloud-based reporting, messaging, and mapping capabilities. Water Check participants now receive GIS-generated irrigation zone maps with site details, online reports, tips, and support via direct messaging. This portal will also support efforts to promote other conservation programing, as well as to facilitate pre-qualification and post-verification of program measure implementation, where appropriate. Homeowners are not the only customers with the capacity to conserve water in their landscapes. WaterMAPSTM, a USU-developed program, helps identify our capacity to conserve in the landscape. Getting this information to the customer requires a cloud-based communications system. Homeowners and landscapes are not the only customers with the capacity to conserve. Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional customers (CII) are also an important part of our water conservation strategy. While these customers’ water use profiles can be more complex than that of residential users, they have the same need for timely, meaningful, and actionable information. Improving the depth and range of information to CII customers will enhance engagement in conservation programing and increase opportunities to successfully achieve stated conservation goals. 4.5.3 CONSERVATION LEARNING LABS [0-14] Timeline: 2026 Budget: TBD Partners: USU/CWEL, UofU Lifelong Learning, EPA-WaterSense Reach: Residential Savings/Metric: Number of participants Research indicates that Utah residents, including those within the service area, believe in the need for, and are committed to water conservation. What is lacking is not the will, but the knowledge of the best, most effective ways to reduce water use. Homeowners want to know how best to water to support conservation while sustaining a landscape, such as: how to select plants, plan the landscape, or convert sprinklers to drip. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-11 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Homeowners also have questions about water efficiency indoors, and ask about toilets, the best way to wash dishes, and how to find and repair leaks? In short, customers have a lot of questions. We have answers. Improving access to solid, up-to-date information and strategies to help homeowners make sensible, sustainable choices will help achieve current and long-term water use reduction goals. Lectures, hands-on labs, and how-to webinars offer in-person and interactive opportunities to convey useful and relevant information. This program will focus on maximizing existing resources to deliver high -quality learning experiences focused on water conservation. Partnerships with USU/CWEL, University of Utah’s Lifelong Learning, and US-EPA WaterSense will ensure quality instruction and content. Conservation education must be an essential, if not always quantifiable, part of any conservation plan. As noted in the State of Utah Regional Water Conservation Goal Report25, “When projecting future water use and conservation potential, it is important to understand that water users’ choices regarding water use will be influenced by a complicated combination of factors…” Thus, even though specific water savings may not be directly attributable to a given conservation program or practice, conservation education and outreach through learning labs and other educational venues is a necessary component of the “combination of policies” that must be in place to motivate and facilitate the ultimate conservation actions. 25 Regional Water Conservation Goal Report, Hansen Allen & Luce and Bowen Collins & Associates, November 2019, p. 16 4.5.4 SCHOOL CLASSROOM PROGRAM [0-10] Timeline: curriculum developed 2022. Relaunch 2026 Budget: NA Partners: USU/CWEL, UofU Lifelong Learning, EPA-WaterSense, AWE Reach: Utility-wide Savings/Metric: Number of events, participants Curriculum was developed in 2022 in partnership with Salt Lake School District 4th grade teachers to introduce water conservation concepts, values, and activities into a classroom setting. Program focus was on grades 4 and 9, to reflect state curriculum, with classroom events occurring that fall and into 2023. With planned increase in conservation staff, this program has a planned relaunch in 2026. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-12 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.5.5 WATER WEEK AND OTHER EVENTS [O-10, O-18] Timeline: On-going. Budget: TBD Partners: USU/CWEL, UofU Lifelong Learning, EPA-WaterSense, AWE Reach: Utility-wide Savings/Metric: Number of participants, partners, and related events In 2007, the State of Utah adopted the first full week in May as State Water Week, thanks to the efforts of the conservation staff and then-legislator Ralph Becker. Though inspired by American Water Works Association Water Week, the event expanded on that concept to include stormwater, waste water, watershed, and water conservation topics along with culinary water. Using art, film, poetry, and even dance to convey the complexity, value, and beauty of all things related to water, the goal of Water Week is to foster a deeper understanding and build stewardship of this incredibly critical resource. The success of this effort is reflected in the number of water agencies across the state that celebrate Water Week with tours, library readings, and other events. In the coming years, the conservation program will re -focus energy to promoting Water Week, as well as other nationally and internationally recognized water - related events, such as Fix-a-Leak Week, Global Water Week, and a Day Without Water. These events are also incorporated into the classroom program and general conservation messaging. 4.5.6 CONSERVATION ACTION PLANS [O-9, U-6] Timeline: On-going. Budget: NA Partners: Internal and external stakeholders; CII customers Reach: Utility-wide Savings/Metric: Water savings with implementation; Number of plans Though this plan is comprehensive, covering the entire Utility service area, it cannot address every opportunity or circumstance of how and where water efficiencies can take place. With that in mind, the conservation team is working directly with internal and external stakeholders, as well as with CII customers, to formulate and implement customer-specific conservation action plans. These plans will include 2 to 5 actionable and measurable goals, timelines for implementation (not to exceed five years), metrics, and an on-site team. Action plans have been completed by SLC Sustainability and SL County Sustainability, with plans in process from SLC Parks, SLC Golf, and SLC Facilities. Completed plans can be found in Appendix P. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-13 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-2 OUTREACH No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected O-1 Brochures √ √ √ √ Develop and distribute brochures relating to water conservation and best practices TBD 2001 - ongoing $14,000 per mailing/service area Quantities mailed. Spikes in visits to related websites NA NA NA O-2 Water Stewardship Calendar √ √ √ 12-month calendar with information and tips covering a variety of water issues. TBD 2007 - 2020 $30,000 for 25,000 copies. Distributed to SLC schools, SL City and County Libraries NA NA NA 0-3 Demonstration Gardens √ √ √ √ Design and install demonstration gardens throughout service area C varied NA TBD NA NA 0-4 SLCTV 17 GardenWise √ √ √ √ Develop and distribute water conservation- focused programming for SLC TV17 C 2001 - 2014 NC Site visits and other web metrics SLC-IMS NA NA O-5 SLC Gardenwise: Virtual Water Conservation Garden tours √ √ √ √ Develop virtual garden tours on web site, include plant data bases, design tips, watering/maintena nce guidance. Incorporates several past program initiatives. √ 6/2014 (SLC Gardenwise) $25,000 for site upgrade. $2,500 for licensing. Site visits Initially partially funded through a Bureau of Reclamation grant NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined – C - Completed SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-14 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-2 OUTREACH No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected O-6 Water Check √ √ √ √ Promote and conduct lawn sprinkler check-ups for residential, commercial, and institutional properties √ (S) Estab. 1988; Partnered with USU 2007. Ongoing. $60,000 provided by MWDSLS annually. SLCDPU one- time funding of additional components, including APP, portal, and GIS capability ($22,000) Map and track use. MWDSL&S 557 AF 47,000 gallons per residential participant annually O-7 SLC Landscape BMPs: Design, Planting and Maintenance Guide √ √ √ √ Develop guide to support best practices in landscape design, implementation, and maintenance to support conservation, stormwater protection, and riparian corridor health. C 10/1/2011 (see E-8) Part of in-kind contribution for BoR Grant TBD SLC Code Enforcement; Northern Colorado Water District; Green Industries of Colorado (GreenCO); UNLA NA NA O-8 Commercial and Industrial Certification √ Develop and implement a water- wise certification program for commercial and institutional water customers ID TBD, in conjunction with CII Tool and CII audits/direct installs TBA Audit and track use of participants TBA NA NA O-9 Conservation Action Plans √ √ Encourage and publish water conservation plans √ In Process NC Track achievements and water use reductions NA NA TBD ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined – C - Completed SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-15 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-2 OUTREACH No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected O-10 Classroom Programs √ Develop package programs and activities to facilitate classroom learning focused on water conservation ID 2026 TBD Track classroom visits and students TBD NA NA O-11 Landscape Assessment and Check-ups √ Provide residential landscape assessments to enhance water efficiencies ID Some landscape assessment is included in Water Check. Expansion contingent on staff capacity. TBD Map and track use TBA NA TBD O-12 Private Garden Project √ √ √ √ Promote institutional, commercial, and residential properties to be water-wise demonstrations ID Dependent on staff capacity TBD. Cost may involve media outreach, yard signs, and other support materials. Map with public access TBD NA NA O-13 Residential Leak Detection and Repair √ Provide low or no- cost leak detection and repair to qualifying households ID TBD TBD Map and track use TBD NA Ave. 490 gallons/ person/ year 480 AF/year for utility O-14 Learning Labs √ √ √ √ Workshops on water conservation techniques and strategies √ Intended start date of 2020; canceled due to Covid-19 outbreak. To be resumed contingent on staff capacity. TBD Track participation rates TBD NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined – C - Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-16 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-2 OUTREACH No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected O-15 CitySourced App √ √ √ √ Mobile app allowing users to submit notifications of observed water waste and other water issues √ Ongoing NC - Program supported thru GIS/IT functions Track number of reported incidents. NA NA NA O-16 WaterMAPS™ √ √ √ √ Outreach focused on WaterMAPSTM outcomes √ Development began in 2018. Public launch June 2023. $100,000 Customer response; target survey; track use USU/CWEL; EWIG grant NA TBD O-17 Cloud-based Public Portals √ √ √ √ Provide cloud- based, secure access of water use analytics to customers across sectors ID In development TBD Visitors; customer response TBD NA NA O-18 Water Week and other Events √ √ √ √ Utilize recognized events to promote understanding and foster stewardship √ 2011 - Ongoing $ Participant levels TBD NA NA O-19 Strategic Communications Plan √ √ √ √ √ 9/2025 $50,000 NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined – C - Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-17 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.6 E CONOMICS Economic initiatives are focused on pricing, rebates, and other programs that offer financial incentives to customer participation or offer services that provide economic value to customers. These programs encourage changes in behavior or upgrades to fixtures, while generating opportunities to measure program effectiveness by monitoring and analyzing water use pre- and post-product or fixture installation, or before and after changes in pricing signals. The targeted nature of these programs will also assist in the challenges of meeting specific, short- and long-term conservation goals. Financial incentives may either be built around avoided costs, such as inclining tiered rates leading to larger bills for more water use; or they may encourage improvements to landscapes or indoor fixtures through product or service discounts or rebates. All conservation incentives should be designed and implemented in such a way as to help to achieve water use reduction goals in a manner that is transparent, cost-effective, and fair, all while ensuring that such programs do not place any undue burdens or create unintended costs for some customers. When creating programs with financial incentives, there are several key issues to keep in mind, whether the signal is a carrot or a stick. If using pricing signals, they need to reflect the cost of water and all that it takes to acquire, treat, and deliver that water; the structure should provide some level of revenue stability; and rates should be fairly and equitably set so as to encourage appropriate use while also making essential water affordable. It is important to note that billing messages may be as important as the bill itself in driving and reducing demand. Rebates and cost-sharing may help reduce water use by encouraging customers to use improved technologies, install better fixtures, renovate landscapes, or otherwise change behavior. As with pricing signals, product or service rebates and cost-shares should provide incentives for a range of customer classifications, help achieve meaningful and sustainable use reductions, demonstrate measurable outcomes, and be equitable. According to a recent Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) study, the most effective and efficacious rebate programs are targeted to specific user classifications or uses (residential or commercial, indoor or outdoor); and have clearly stated pre-qualifications and post-evaluation components. This is to ensure that the rebate provided achieves the desired goal for both customer and utility. When used appropriately, incentive pricing and rebates can be highly targeted tools for achieving short- and long-term water use reductions goals while providing value and benefits to customers. FIVE -YEAR FOCUS Economic Programs •CII Audits and Direct -Installs •Rebates, Microgrants, and Other Incentives SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-18 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.6.1 REBATES, MICRO-GRANTS, AND INCENTIVES [E-4, E-6, E-7, E-8] Timeline: TBD Budget: TBD Partners: TBD Reach: Residential Savings/Metric: Acres altered; meter-use comparisons. NOTE: this metric only considers know participants in programs and does not include reductions in water use derived from non-participant landscape transformations. Customers within the service area have done a remarkable job reducing water use. Since 2001 and the beginning of the water conservation program, total water use has reduced nearly 28%, and residential household use has reduced by 29%. As good as these numbers are, there is still more to do as indicated in the Water Supply and Demand Study. To sustain future supplies and live within our water means, residential water users will need to reduce an additional 14% indoors, and as much as a third of our outdoor use. Up to now, conservation has been achieved primarily through voluntary actions as home and property owners adopt better practices or make improvements to homes and landscapes. To meet new water conservation goals and to support homeowners in their efforts, a series of pilot rebate programs have been proposed. Irrigation spray heads, rain sensors, lawn trades, and low-flow fixtures are being considered. Additionally, this program will also work to increase consumer awareness of existing rebates available through partnership with Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD). Recently published studies by the AWE indicate that program success depends on proper customer vetting, prequalification, and post -engagement verification. WaterMAPSTM and Water Check programs are well suited to provide the necessary quality control measures to ensure rebate program effectiveness. Not all customers have issues with outdoor watering, but rather, need to manage general use or bill amounts. Rebate programs focused on leak detection and repair, and fixture replacement will help qualifying households reduce water use and waste, and reduce their water bills, keeping essential indoor water use affordable. Directed at both indoor and outdoor water use, these programs should help customers achieve greater levels of efficiency and reduce waste. Following water use of participating households will provide greater insight into residential water use patterns, which will inform future programs, and building relationships within the community will further enhance conservation efforts. 4.6.2 CII AUDITS AND DIRECT INSTALLS [E-10] Timeline: 2020 Budget: Phase I $95,000 Partners: CUWCD Reach: CII Savings: TBD Though conservation practices have historically focused on outdoor single- family residential water use, that use reflects roughly one-fourth of all use. Though comprising only 12 percent of water connections, CII water use (both indoors and out) accounts for more than half of all metered water sales. With this in mind, programing in the CII sector has increased to include enhanced analytics, identification of sector-specific water use standards, and establishment of preliminary water use reduction goals. One way to assist select CII customers in reducing water use is to identify inefficient practices or fixtures and to incentivize changes. This project proposes audits of select CII accounts including assessment of water use records and trends, review of standard practices, and inventory and measurement audits of appliances and fixtures. Phase I of this project will focus on small hotels and motels, restaurants, and public and assisted housing. Sites have been selected through water use analytics, identifying properties that show higher than average water use within each sector. After conducting initial assessments, recommendations will be made for fixture, appliance, and practice changes. Some fixture and appliance practices may provide incentives or rebates through matched funding. Besides directly assisting participating CII customers in reducing water waste and overall water use, this project will provide invaluable data regarding common practices within specific CII sectors, as well as building relationships between CII customers and conservation program staff. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-19 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-3 ECONOMICS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected E-1 Irrigation Meters and Budgets √ √ √ √ Establish budgets for accounts with dedicated irrigation- only meters √ 2003-Current NA Map and track use. Map eligible sites not currently using irrigation meters; chart potential savings/budget impacts NA NA NA E-2 Rate Structuring √ √ √ √ Utilize a rate structure to encourage responsible use of water √ Periodic NA Track water use through various tiers over time. NA NA NA E-3 Volumetric and loading Sewer Charge √ √ √ √ Base sewer rates on metered winter water usage √ Periodic TBD Track use and discharge over time NA NA TBD E-4 Rebate: Irrigation Rain Sensors √ √ √ √ Incentivize installation of irrigation rain sensors through rebates ID TBD TBD Pre-quality/verify through Water Check; Map locations; track/compare use TBD NA TBD E-5 Rain barrels √ Provide for purchase rain barrels to homeowners √ 2015-Current Potentially no cost to Utility dependent on selected vendor Map barrel locations. Track water use. Can we identify locations of barrels purchased elsewhere? NA TBD TBD E-6 Rebate: HE Irrigation Spray Heads √ √ Incentivize installation of high- efficiency irrigation spray heads through rebates ID TBD TBD Pre-quality/verify through Water Check; Map locations; track/compare use USU Water Check NA TBD ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-20 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-3 ECONOMICS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected E-7 Turf Trades √ √ √ √ Incentivize utilization of low-water, low- input turf grasses, either as seed or sod, in new landscape or as retrofits. √ 2022 – current Program is direct funded by program participants Track participant water use USU/CWEL and TWCA TBD 2.3 AF per acre of turf conversion E-8 Rebate: Pressure Regulators √ Incentivize installation of pressure regulation devises to improve indoor and outdoor efficiency and enhance product/appliance wear. ID TBD TBD Track water use TBD NA TBD E-9 Residential Leak Detection and Repair √ √ Provide low or no- cost leak detection and repair to qualifying households; fixture replacement. ID TBD TBD Map and track use TBD NA 490 gallons/ person/ year 480 AF/year for utility E-10 CII Audits and direct installs √ Conduct audits and provide direct- installs on select CII properties. 2023 focus on City properties. ID 2022 - Current Pilot: $200,000 Track water use $50,000 NA TBD E-11 Rebate: Landscape Transform- ation √ √ √ √ √ 2020 – Current NC Acreage converted; metered-use analysis CUWCD TBD TBD ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-21 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.7 U TILITY O PERATIONS The City is committed to be a leader in water conservation. With that in mind, these initiatives represent adopted actions and practices that will help ensure infrastructure is built and maintained in a manner which optimizes water efficiency, minimizes or eliminates waste, and demonstrates best practices. Salt Lake City has been fully metered since the 1920s, making it one of the earliest and longest running metered water systems in the Western United States. Historically, meters have been read monthly (or more technically, each meter is read roughly every 28 to 31 days), and from those readings’ bills are generated and mailed. Until recently, meter technology has not changed a great deal; Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) profoundly changes both when and the how of meter reading. Utilizing long-range radio systems, AMIs record and report water use more accurately and with much greater frequency than has been possible. Utilizing this new technology, water use can be monitored in increments as small as 15-minute intervals. Work has begun to replace all meters (roughly 92,000) with AMIs. Outdoor water use, specifically, landscape water use and waste, is an important component of managing and reducing our water footprint. While it may seem that conservation and landscape programs focus on single-family residential customers, every landscape can be more efficient. Last year, a comprehensive audit of Department landscaped properties was conducted, with the intent to develop a strategy to increase outdoor water use efficiency. This program aims to reduce water use and greenhouse gas emissions while demonstrating best practices. The Residential End Uses of Water26 estimated that an average of 12 percent of residential indoor water use is lost to leaks. This water loss can account for as much as 10,000 gallons per year. Imagine then, how much water is lost within an entire water system. According to the Salt Lake City Supply and Demand Master Plan, water loss within the water infrastructure system is estimated to be between 10 to 12 percent, an amount over 11,000 AF of water annually. Implementation is planned for conducting water system audit modeled after 26Footnote: DeOreo, William, Peter Mayer, Benedykt Dziegielewski, Jack Kiefer. Residential End Uses of Water 2016. Water research foundation. Denver, Co AWWA-M36 methodologies to identify the volume of water loss, determine what proportion of this water is apparent or real loss, and identify appropriate steps and practices to address this loss. FIVE -YEAR FOCUS Utility Programs •Evaluate Data -Mining Opportunities of AMI Technologies •Landscape Upgrades and Maintenance •Implement M36 Findings •Implement City -Wide Water Efficiency Study Findings SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-22 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.7.1 EVALUATE DATA-MINING OPPORTUNITIES OF AMI TECHNOLOGIES [U-7, U-9] Timeline: TBD Budget: TBD Partners: NA Reach: Utility-wide Savings/Metric: Efficacy of data extraction Utilization of water meters, coupled with regular readings and billing statements, helps to manage water supplies and convey specific and critical information to water users. Water users can then use this information to make good decisions regarding future water use. Since the 1920’s, water use has been metered, read, and billed throughout the service area. Outside of the computerization of meter and billing data functions, this practice has seen little change over its history. Though this process might have been adequate, it did present shortcomings for conservation programming. Receiving regular meter billing data helps inform customers, but it is a snapshot of past behavior and lacks immediacy. The development of advanced metering infrastructure technologies (AMI) has revolutionized this process. Currently, residential and CII mechanical meters are being replaced with AMI technology. This will provide daily information to water managers and water customers, enhancing resource management response and improving customer understanding of water use. AMI technologies are providing live-time water use data, improving leak detection, and enhancing understanding of water use patterns, all of which is informing current and future water conservation programs. A better understanding of the data available and how to use that data will enhance technology impacts. 4.7.2 LANDSCAPE UPGRADES AND MAINTENANCE [U-2, U-10, U-11] Timeline: 2020 to current Budget: $100,000 (proposed annually) Partners: NA Reach: Utility-wide Savings: 480 AF/year for upgrades to City properties including Parks and Golf properties Approximately 55 percent of water use within the service area is used to maintain landscapes, and landscape and irrigation design, installation, and maintenance affect water use. Improving site management helps to reduce water waste. With this in mind, a comprehensive practice has been established for landscape and irrigation design and management that addresses existing properties and to-be-developed properties. For newly developed properties, staff engineers and consultants work with water conservation staff on site design, ensuring that best practices are followed, and new landscapes are efficient, sustainable, and attractive. Existing properties are also a component of this program. Properties have been catalogued and are being evaluated for irrigation and landscape characteristics, maintenance histories, as well as water use. After completing the WaterMAPS™ assessments, landscapes will be classified and prioritized for improvements, including irrigation and landscape improvements. In the meantime, water conservation staff are working closely with the stormwater and distribution divisions to enhance site management, ensuring reduction in water use and other inputs. Additional to proposed and planned landscape upgrades, conservation and stormwater staff are collaborating to develop specifications and guidelines for implementation of biofiltration and other Low Impact Design (LID) infrastructure. The purpose will be to facilitate the construction of biofiltration retention and other green infrastructure in order to improve and protect stormwater quality. The synergistic collaboration between stormwater and conservation programing will ensure that future LIDs support both stormwater and conservation goals. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-23 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.7.3 LEAK DETECTION AND M36 AUDIT OUTCOMES [U-3] Timeline: Ongoing Budget: TBD Partners: NA Reach: Utility-wide Savings/Metric: 1,450 AF/year This assumes that system losses can be reduced from 12% to 9% (see R-19) and that 50 percent of the saved system losses come from leak detection and repair. Public Utilities began its leak detection program in 2005 with the purchase of one correlator. Currently we have 2 full-time employees, 2 correlators, and 10 portable loggers dedicated to leak detection. The program pinpoints leaks that are surfacing away from the actual break, helping crews to identify and locate leaks more quickly. We also use a machine learning model to predict the likelihood of failure to determine the best areas to survey. We are hoping to enhance the program with new technology such as AI, more loggers, satellite, and ground penetrating radar. In 2025, the Utility completed the AWWA M36 water audit, a robust top-down evaluation to identify and address non-revenue water. Over the next five years, the Utility will develop a strategy for evaluating and, as feasible, implementing the findings of that study. Additionally, now that the baseline has been set, the conservation office will update the findings annually 4.7.4 CITY-WIDE WATER EFFICIENCY STUDY [U-2, O-7] Timeline: 2023 - ongoing Budget: TBD Partners: Maddaus Water Management, USU/CWEL/ CUWCD, DWRe, Salt Lake County Reach: City properties Savings/Metric: At least 5 MG annually In 2023, with support from the Utility director, Laura Briefer, Mayor Mendenhall requested the Utility to expand its CII analysis project to focus on City-owned and operated properties. An existing contract with Maddaus Water Management Inc. was amended, and over the next six months, an extensive analysis of City properties was implemented. Assistance in conducting CII audits was provided by Central Utah Water Conservancy District and Utah State Division of Water Resources staff. The project involved evaluating water use through 757 meters, conducting Water Checks at 16 sites, applying WaterMAPS™ to 68 properties, and conducting 14 indoor audits. The report was submitted to the Mayor’s Office December 2023. Findings included: • Identifying 350,000 square feet of un-utilized turf; • Irrigation system issues; • Leaking water-cooled HVAC systems; • Leaking or poorly operating toilets and faucets; and • Large vehicle wash-station hose issues. Some actions have already been taken, including replacing a cooling tower with a high-efficiency air-cooled unit. Bathroom fixture repairs began upon identification, and irrigation system maintenance addressed the following irrigation season. An estimated 5 million gallons of water could be saved annually by addressing the findings in the report; the conservation office is currently working with other city departments on implementation plans and funding mechanisms. (See https://www.slcdocs.com/utilities/2023CityWaterEfficiencyReport.pdf.) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-24 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-4 UTILITY OPERATIONS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected U-1 Customer Use Change Notification √ √ √ √ Notify customers when water usage exceeds winter usage by 20 percent. √ Currently only applied to commercial and industrial customers. NA Map. Compare addresses to home age, frequency of notification. Can we reduce this number? NA NA TBD U-2 Landscape Upgrades √ Inventory and assess Utility properties for water efficiencies and make necessary upgrades. √ Recommendations of practice scope to be derived from updated Supply and Demand Study, and WaterMAPSTM Analysis. Varies Map utility locations, water usage. Assess landscape change potential, ROI. NA NA 480 AF/year (Including Parks and Golf) U-3 Leak Detection and Repair √ Implement program to ensure enhanced distribution system efficiencies; identify and repair system leaks in a timely manner. √ Utility completed AWWA M36 Assessment in 2003. NA Mapped through CityWorks. NA NA 1,450 AF/year U-4 Monthly meter reading and billing √ √ √ √ Provide timely and accurate information to customer to increase awareness of water use. √ 1928 NA Track use NA NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C - Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-25 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-4 UTILITY OPERATIONS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected U-5 Public Utility Advisory Committee √ Standing citizen committee to advise in conservation policy and programming. √ 1930’s NA Board support and engagement in programing. NA NA NA U-6 SLC Dept/Div Conservation and Drought Plans √ Encourage and publish water conservation plans from City Departments and Divisions. √ Some completed as part of 2014 Water Conservation Master Plan Update; planned for 2019 WCMP update. 2019: $75,000 + in-kind match Track response and use levels during drought per drought plan guidelines. 2019 Update funded through Bureau of Reclamation Grant for $75,000 NA NA U-7 Universal metering and meter replacement √ √ √ √ Each account is metered and meter replacement program in place. √ 2000s Cost Varies Map meter replacement locations? Map different types of meters? Measure pre/post change usage. NA 900 AF for every 1% of lost accuracy recovered 900 AF for every 1% of lost accuracy recovered U-8 Water Re-use Study √ Study feasibility of water re-use pilot project. C Study completed in 2015 - See study outcome recommendati ons. NA NA NA U-9 Advanced Meter Technologies √ √ √ √ Adopt new technologies that allow for instant reading of meters while facilitating data analysis √ Utility implementing AMI installation for residential and CII customers. Cost Varies Map locations; meter use analysis. NA NA TBD ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C - Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-26 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-4 UTILITY OPERATIONS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected U-10 Landscape Specifications √ √ Update landscape and irrigation specifications for inclusion in SLCPDU construction projects. ID 2020/21 TBD TBD NA NA NA U-11 Landscape Maintenance √ Implement BMPs for maintaining SLCDPU properties to enhance conservation and sustainability. √ Contract implemented 2019 Varies Track water use on sites. NA NA NA U-12 EPA WaterSense Partnership √ Become a partner in EPA WaterSense. √ 2025 NA NA US-EPA NA NA U-13 AWWA/AWE Program Certification √ Submit documentation for review and scoring of conservation program. √ 2026 NA NA AWWA, AWE NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C - Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-27 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.8 L AW AND P OLICY Since the inception of the conservation program, the City has depended predominantly on volunteer engagement to achieve its water use reduction goals. There are examples of ordinances and policies that support conservation, including landscape codes and the billing rate structure. In order to achieve the next level of goals, there are ordinances and policies that would support further conservation by codifying some best practices and addressing egregious water waste. 4.8.1 EVALUATE ORDINANCES AND POLICIES [LP-4, LP-7, LP-8] Timeline: Ongoing Budget: NA Partners: NA Reach: Utility-wide Savings/Metric: TBD Squandered Water Ordinance [LP-8] Even before the creation of the water conservation program, water customers acted promptly and appropriately to calls for temporary reductions in water use. As a result of this long history, the conservation program has come to depend on this volunteer spirit to facilitate our initial water use reductions. However, after nearly twenty years, not everyone is part of the solution. Usually, when asked to change or correct a behavior, requests are positively received; sometimes they are not. Sometimes, property owners insist on watering daily; an absentee owner won’t repair a leaking swamp cooler; or a remote corporate office isn’t concerned with the broken and geysering spray head at a grocery store, miles, or states away. This disregard for a limited and valued resource is the definition of squandering and is why it may be time to consider such an ordinance. FIVE -YEAR FOCUS Law & Policy Programs •Evaluate Ordinances and Policies o Squandered Water o Clarification of Irrigation - Only Meter Ordinance o Evaluation of Irrigation Only Budgets o Review Existing Landscape Ordinances SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-28 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Clarification of Irrigation-only Meter Ordinance In 2003, a seasonal tiered rate structure was adopted as a means to enhance the message of the value of water and to ensure that those who use the most water pay the most for that water. Along with establishing rates for residential and CII customers, irrigation-only meter accounts were also established. These meters are intended to service outdoor water use during irrigation season months. Each account receives site-specific, monthly water budgets based on landscapeable area and modified evapotranspiration equations. Staying in budget means water is charged in the second tier, identified as reasonable outdoor use. Occasionally, a property owner or manager doesn’t turn off their irrigation system and the irrigation-only meter continues to be used. Owing to v ague language in the rate ordinance, this un-authorized winter use of irrigation-only meters has been billed in the first tier, as is all other winter water use. Evaluation of Irrigation-only Meter Budgets [LP-12] As mentioned above, irrigation-only meters and budgets were established in 2003 to encourage responsible outdoor water use while maintaining landscape health, support efforts to sustain water supplies for necessary and beneficial uses, and to help achieve both overall water use reduction as well as reduction of peak water demand. These budgets, developed in conjunction with Utah State University Plants, Soils, and Climate Department, consider irrigated areas, reference evapotranspiration, and irrigation efficiencies of 60 percent. Since then, through continued research, understanding of actual turf water need has grown, and adequate science exists to indicate that it is time to review and reassess these budgets. Additionally, better technology helps deliver water more efficiently. Given the new goals as outlined in the Water Supply and Demand Study and articulated in Chapter 3 of this plan, it is important to align irrigation-only budgets with current science and long-term outdoor water reduction goals. Review Existing Landscape Ordinances and Policies Salt Lake City Planning Department conducted a rigorous evaluation of landscape codes over the past several years, including Salt Lake City’s Code 21A.48.055: Water Efficient Landscaping, which establishes best practices to help reduce water waste in landscapes and park strips. This evaluation was conducted, in part, to ensure city code met the recommendations of Central Utah Water Conservancy District in order to continue participation in landscape transformation programs. As a part of this evaluation, the City clarified the intent of existing landscape code that prohibits the use of artificial turf in park strips, front yards, buffer zones, and parking lots. The reasons for this prohibition are based on research identifying negative impacts of artificial turf on heat-island effect and storm water quality. Research conducted by the conservation office supported this review and takes the position that, while artificial turf might seem to use less water during commissioning, its manufacturing, cleaning, and disposal may negate those seeming benefits. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-29 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-5 LAW AND POLICY No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected LP-1 Graywater √ √ √ √ Research issues regarding Graywater use and establish appropriate policy. C Initial research completed 2017 NA Is there a way to identify where graywater is being used? USU NA NA LP-2 Irrigation Audit Policy √ √ Develop and adopt an ordinance requiring Irrigation Audits on all new commercial and institutional properties, and accounts which exceed target or set CCF. C 7/2014 Can be compelled through Landscape Ord NA Number of audits and report outcomes NA NA NA LP-3 Irrigation Efficiency Standards √ √ √ Develop and adopt Irrigation Efficiency Standards for all commercial and institutional properties. C 7/2014 Landscape Ord/new construction NA NA Irrigation Association NA NA LP-4 Landscape Ordinance √ √ √ √ Amend existing landscape code to accommodate and encourage water- wise landscaping in front yards and to be consistent with CUWCD model ordinance. C 2022 NA NA SLC Planning NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-30 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-5 LAW AND POLICY No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected LP-5 Parkstrip Code √ √ √ √ Develop and adopt ordinance to accommodate and encourage non- traditional, lower water plantings. C Adopted 2004 (currently in review) NA NA NA NA NA LP-6 Rainwater Harvesting √ Research issues relating to rainwater harvesting and support appropriate legislation. C Adopted by State 2010 (SB 32) Initial investment of $14,000. Barrels sold at cost sustains program. Track water use of known participating households. NA NA NA LP-7 Rain Sensor Ordinance and Policy √ √ Require all properties with automated outdoor sprinkler systems to be fitted with rain sensors. C A component of 2014 water efficient landscape code NA NA NA NA NA LP-8 Squandered Water Ordinance √ √ √ √ Develop and adopt ordinance prohibiting the squandering of water. ID TBD NA NA NA NA TBD LP-9 Sub-surface or Low- impact Irrigation for Small Areas √ √ Require sub-surface or low-impact irrigation on medians, park strips, and in parking lots. C Landscape code prohibits standard irrigation in these areas NA NA NA NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-31 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-5 LAW AND POLICY No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected LP-10 Water Shortage Contingency Plan √ √ √ √ Identify specific calls for action during water shortages and emergencies. C 2025 $75,000 WaterSmart grant with $78,000 in- kind match. See Plan for monitoring details. Funded through grant from Bureau of Reclamation NA NA LP-11 Irrigation- only Meters √ √ √ Review existing policy and make recommendations. √ Review existing policy NA Map: locations, meters that exceed target/frequenc y by user class; potential sites not currently metered NA NA NA LP-12 Sub- metering on New Multi- Family Dwelling Units √ Explore requiring all new multi-family dwelling units to be sub-metered and address metering in mixed use development ID TBD TBD Identify and map submeters NA NA NA LP-13 Alternative Water Sources Use Recommen- dations √ Establish guideline for implementation pertaining to alternative water sources, including secondary water C Study on secondary water sources for park sites was completed 2018. $62,500 See study NA NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-32 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.9 R ESEARCH AND M ETRICS Successful conservation programs require an understanding of the community served, including the relationship of the end water user to their water use. Continuing research helps to identify the ways in which water is used; how it may be over- or misused; and the best means for altering behavior or practices to improve use efficiencies and reduce or eliminate waste. It is also crucial to understand program efficacy and effectiveness. In this regard, identifying meaningful benchmarks and metrics is key to program evaluation, review, and improvement. The value of research and establishment of metrics should not be underestimated; the Governor’s 2017 Recommended State Water Strategy27 devotes an entire chapter to the role of science and technology in enhancing our understanding as well as to develop practical and actionable steps to meet our future water needs. According to the strategic plan, science, technology, and innovation are crucial components of meeting water needs, now and in the future. Fortunately, conservation staff have developed collaborative and cooperative relationships with many academic institutions and professional organizations that offer opportunities to extend knowledge, build understanding, and devise meaningful strategies to move towards water conservation goals. Internally, the water conservation program works with team members from GIS/IT, finance, billing, metering, and engineering to identify areas of study and meaningful benchmarks. For example, through the Water Check program, we know that, while residential property owners tend to apply nearly twice as much water as is necessary to support lawns, commercial and institutional users may irrigate three to four times as much as needed. Though the overall footprint of landscaped areas of non-residential property is less than that of residential property, this represents a great opportunity to reduce water waste, given the degree of overwatering. Applying WaterMAPS™ to commercial and institutional properties will help to quantify the potential water savings, while surveys and focus groups will identify how best to capture that savings. Research into emerging technologies and 27 https://envisionutah.org/utah-water-strategy-project practices will continue as a critical component of effective conservation programing in order to achieve newly established water use reduction goals. FIVE -YEAR FOCUS Research & Metrics Programs •Conduct AWWA M36 Study •Establish Metrics, Benchmarks, & Goals •5 - and 10 -year Program Budget •CII Analytics •SLC D PU/USU Collaborative Research SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-33 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.9.1 CONDUCT AWWA M36 STUDY [R-19] Timeline: 2020-2025 Budget: $125,000 Partners: NA Reach: all Savings/Metric: 2,900 AF (900 million gallons) per year if system losses are reduced to 9%. Note that these savings are not associated with the audit alone, but with the actions taken to eliminate system loss as a result of the audit. Currently, a leak detection program and water data analysis programs are underway. The water conservation office led undertaking the AWWA Manual of Water Supply Practices: M36 Water Audits and Loss Control Program . This comprehensive study will facilitate improvements in water resource management, optimize revenue recovery while promoting equity among rate payers, minimize distribution system interruptions, enhance system integrity, and reduce water waste through identification of metering and system losses. Over the last five years, system losses have averaged approximately 12 percent. While it is not reasonable to expect zero system losses, it is believed that system losses could be reduced to somewhere between 8 to 10 percent with proactive leak detection and repair. Thus, potential water savings could be estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of gallons per year. Next steps include evaluating study recommendations for feasibility of implementation. 4.9.2 ESTABLISH METRICS, BENCHMARKS, AND GOALS FOR CONSERVATION PROGRAMING [R-1, O-6] Timeline: Ongoing Budget: TBD Partners: Reach: all Savings/Metric: TBD Over the lifetime of the conservation program, 16,000 acre-feet of water have been saved annually. Establishing metrics, benchmarks, goals, and potential water savings for conservation programing will facilitate understanding how those savings were achieved, and how best to sustain and enhance those savings. Not all metrics and benchmarks will be identical; for instance, the impact of a brochure or demonstration garden cannot be measured in the same manner as would the effectiveness of rain sensor rebates or Water Checks. Reliance on industry best practices, research by AWE, US-EPS, and AWWA, as well as efforts by other conservation programs to identify benchmarks and metrics will facilitate this program measure. 4.9.3 5- AND 10-YEAR PROPOSED WATER CONSERVATION BUDGET Timeline: 2020-2030 Budget: NA Partners: Internal Reach: Utility-wide Savings/Metric: NA Continued program continuity and success depends on the ability to plan ahead. The establishment of 5- and 10-year budget proposals will facilitate program planning, support partnership arrangements, and optimize grant opportunities. Past budget and program performance, future stakeholder and partnership opportunities, outside conservation program examples, and AWE and AWWA program estimate costs will be consulted in establishing proposed budgets. 4.9.4 LANDSCAPE AND TURF CONVERSION IMPACTS Timeline: Ongoing Budget: NA Partners: CUCWD and Internal Reach: Utility Wide Savings/Metric: Acres of traditional turf converted into alternative landscaping. Beginning in 2022 SLCDPU began offering a low-water grass seed alternative for customers to purchase, referred to as “SLC TurfTrade”. CUWCD also began a landscape transformation rebate program within its entire service area in August 2021. Since that time, many customers within SLCDPU have taken advantage of one or both of these programs, or have independently adjusted their landscaping to be more water conscience. These landscape conversions need to continue for SLCDPU to reach their ultimate goal of outdoor use water reduction. The table below illustrates the acreage of traditional turf that would need to be converted to alternative landscaping to meet interim and long-term conservation targets. The landscape conversions considered were the SLCDPU SLC TurfTrade, a very high water efficiency Waterwise landscape, and a typical CUWCD landscape transformation. Note that the targets shown in this table represent three separate scenarios in which all landscaping is converted into only one alternative; in reality, a mixture of all three landscaping conversions will need to occur to achieve the long-term stated application rates. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-34 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR LANDSCAPE CONVERSION (ACRES) TO ACHIEVE LONG-TERM (2060) GOAL* SLC TurfTrade Conversion Only Waterwise High Efficiency Conversion Only Landscape Transformation Conversion Only Resulting Application Rate (in/yr) 2020 0 0 0 24.7 2025 150 477 718 24.1 2035 2,715 1,599 2,569 23.6 2045 3,839 2,067 3,368 23.3 2060 5,619 2,809 4,633 22.8 * ET Rates: Standard turf =24"; Turf trade = 18"; Waterwise High Efficiency = 12.3"; Landscape Transformation = 20" Application Rates: Standard turf = 34.3"; Turf trade = 25.7"; Waterwise High Efficiency = 13.7"; Landscape Transformation = 22.2" 4.9.5 SLCDPU/USU COLLABORATION [R-1, R-5, O-6, O-16] Timeline: Ongoing Budget: Varies Partners: Varies Reach: Service-wide Savings/Metric: Varies Water Check [R-1, O-6] Timeline: Ongoing Budget: $18,000 (proposed) Partners: USU, MWDSLS, Sandy City Reach: Residential, CII Savings/Metric: 577AF To Date Landscape irrigation accounts for almost 25% of water use within the service area. Understanding how water is used and communicating better practices to home and property owners supports long-term water use reduction goals. The Water Check irrigation audit program was created in 1999 and is provided by Utah State University and the Center for Water Efficient Landscaping, with financial and technical support from department conservation staff and Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy (MWDSLS). Typical Water Check participants know they have a problem but don’t know what to do about it. The Water Check program provides recommended site - specific irrigation schedules as well as irrigation system and landscape action items to help increase their landscape irrigation efficiency. By comparing pre and post Water Check water usage, we know that having a Water Check typically results in a 30% reduction in water use in subsequent years. It’s important to note that audits need to be done regularly to maintain efficiency. Water Check will also be incorporated into future landscape incentive programs. Studies indicate landscape program success depends on pre-qualification and post-verification to ensure landscape interventions are appropriately implemented. Water Check will assist in providing those functions, ensuring that program goals for incentives are met. GIS technology has been integrated with the Water Check application for enhanced data accuracy including use area, asset location, attributes (nozzle spray pattern, etc.), and condition (broken, tilted, etc.). A further benefit is that property owners now receive, along with an electronic report, a site map indicating location, zone, and condition of spray heads. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-35 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Water MAPSTM [R-5, O-16] Timeline: 2018-current Budget: $70,000 annually Partners: USU/CWEL, EWIG Reach: Utility-wide Savings: TBD WaterMAPSTM is a collaboration between the WaterMAPS™ team in USU’s Center for Water Efficient Landscaping (CWEL) and the Water Conservation Program of SLCDPU. WaterMAPSTM provides SLCDPU with technical assistance and science-based analysis to locate and quantify additional landscape water conservation potential so it can determine when, where, and how to deliver current and future outdoor-focused water conservation programs. Besides providing detailed information on outdoor water use to customers, this project will help to effectively utilize existing programs such as Water Check and optimize implementation of new programs such as landscape incentives. How much water conservation potential exists within the landscapes of the service area and how are those potential savings captured? What tools are most effective with any given group of water users to eliminate waste, increase efficiency, and reduce use? The answers to these questions will enable SLCDPU to prioritize delivery of future outdoor water conservation programs and help the community to be adaptive and responsive in its relationship with water in order to create a more sustainable water supply now and for the future. However, we do not know how much water is actually being wasted on existing landscapes. Analysis of city meter data can provide clues as to watering practices, but the question remains: How much irrigation water currently being applied is not necessary to support existing urban landscapes? Application of USU Water Management Analysis and Planning Software (WaterMAPS™) addresses this specific information need. WaterMAPS™ is a custom software application that has been developed by an interdisciplinary team of USU researchers for the purpose of promoting urban landscape water conservation (visit watermaps.usu.edu). WaterMAPS™ integrates water meter data with property records, weather data, and landscape classifications into one database, then enables different time-step calculations of site-specific Landscape Irrigation Ratios (LIRs) that compare landscape water use to landscape water need. The LIRs represent an efficiency standard, with values under 1 indicating efficient use and increasingly higher numbers indicating “capacity to conserve” (or water waste). Various patterns in how LIRs change over time can signal the need for delivery or refinement of conservation messaging and programming. In this project, several different innovations will be implemented in the application of WaterMAPS™ to help SLCDPU meet the challenge of refining and focusing outdoor water conservation programs in the future. From water meter data and Water Checks reports, we “know” many households over water their landscapes. And now, through their WaterMAPS™ reports, homeowners can also understand how they water and identify their own capacity to conserve. But WaterMAPS™ also performs analytics that helps to inform conservation programming. Figure 4.1 shows the number of households in each LIR category over a ten-year period, the majority of which are within the lowest LIR Ranges. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-36 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Within the WaterMAPS™ analysis, we came to recognize four distinct categories of water users: low use and low LIR; low use and high LIR; high use and low LIR; high use and high LIR (see Figure 4.2). This helps in directing programming to more specifically address water use patterns. For example, a house with a low LIR but high use might have completed a landscape transformation but haven’t yet adjusted the watering schedule to reflect the new landscape; they may just need information on watering a new plant palette. Conversely, a house with a high LIR and high-water use might be a good candidate for the landscape transformation program. FIGURE 4-1 AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL LIR RANGES F IGURE 4 -2 R ESIDENTIAL C ATEGORIZATION B Y LIR A ND W ATER V OLUME F IGURE 4 -1 A VERAGE R ESIDENTIAL LIR R ANGES F IGURE 4 -2 R ESIDENTIAL C ATEGORIZATION B Y LIR A ND W ATER V OLUME F IGURE 4 -2 R ESIDENTIAL C ATEGORIZATION B Y LIR A ND W ATER V OLUME F IGURE 4 -1 A VERAGE R ESIDENTIAL LIR R ANGES F IGURE 4 -2 R ESIDENTIAL C ATEGORIZATION B Y LIR A ND W ATER V OLUME F IGURE 4 -1 A VERAGE R ESIDENTIAL LIR R ANGES F IGURE 4 -2 R ESIDENTIAL C ATEGORIZATION B Y LIR A ND W ATER V OLUME FIGURE 4-2 RESIDENTIAL CATEGORIZATION BY LIR AND WATER VOLUME F IGURE 4 -2 R ESIDENTIAL C ATEGORIZATION B Y LIR A ND W ATER V OLUME F IGURE 1 -3 P ROJECTED SLCDPU S ERVICE A REA A NNUAL P RODUCTION R EQUIREMENTS FIGURE 4 -2 R ESIDENTIAL C ATEGORIZATION B Y LIR A ND W ATER V OLUME F IGURE 4 -2 R ESIDENTIAL C ATEGORIZATION B Y LIR A ND W ATER V OLUME F IGURE 1 -3 P ROJECTED SLCDPU S ERVICE A REA A NNUAL P RODUCTION R EQUIREMENTS FIGURE 4 -2 R ESIDENTIAL C ATEGORIZATION B Y LIR A ND W ATER V OLUME F IGURE 4 -2 R ESIDENTIAL C ATEGORIZATION B Y LIR A ND W ATER V OLUME F IGURE 1 -3 P ROJECTED SLCDPU S ERVICE A REA A NNUAL P RODUCTION R EQUIREMENTS FIGURE 4 -2 R ESIDENTIAL C ATEGORIZATION B Y LIR A ND W ATER V OLUME SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-37 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Golf Course Turfgrass Study Timeline: 2018-2022 Budget: $45,000 Partners: USU/CWEL Reach: CII Savings/Metric: 30-80% Reduction in water use In 2018, conservation programs began working collaboratively with Salt Lake City Golf (SLC-Golf); Utah State University Department of Plants, Soils, & Climate (USU/CWEL); and the United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service Forage and Range Research Laboratory (USDA -FRRL) to find solutions that reduce water demand and eliminate water waste while supporting the golf division in enhancing long-term sustainability of its courses by managing fiscal impacts of increasing water costs, all while supporting playability and economic viability of City courses. Conservation staff, SLC-Golf, USU/CWEL, and USDA-FRRL devised field-based research in the areas of drought tolerant grass research, soil surfactant application, water conditioning evaluations, and soil temperature measurement. Outcomes from these studies will not only provide actionable information for SLC-Golf but is already influencing landscape management decisions at department sites and is helping to inform incentive and rebate program planning. This study has been recommended for an additional two-year extension. Alternative Turfgrass Study Timeline: 2020-2023 Budget: $25,000 (proposed) Partners: USU/CWEL Reach: Utility-wide Savings: 1.67 AF/43,500SF Outdoor water use has been an important focus of water conservation efforts locally and statewide over the last twenty years, and in the center of this focus sits Kentucky Blue grass. Over the last fifteen years, USU has conducted field studies of Poa species (blue grass), as well as other grass species and varieties with the intent of identifying alternative turfs to traditional lawn grass. The outcome of these studies has been the identification of turfs requiring fewer inputs while still delivering on the aesthetic and environmental qualities that make lawns so compelling a landscape choice. Conservation staff propose to work with USU and other partners to increase the use of these turf grasses within the service area as well as regionally, through a number of strategies. These will include turf demonstration areas, installation of these turfs on department properties, development of educational and promotional materials, collaboration with seed and sod growers, and consideration for inclusion in incentive programming. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-38 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR An outcome of these ongoing studies was the identification of a low-water residential quality turf grass that requires 30 to 40% less water than the typical Kentucky bluegrass Lawn. In 2022, the Utility launched the SLC TurfTrade program, making available a low-water seed mix at cost to customers within the service area. The success of this project was immediate, with over 2,000 households purchasing and planting SLC TurfTrade grass seed. The program has now spread to Colorado, Arizona, California, and even to communities in Ontario, Canada. Synthetic Grass Study Timeline: 2026 Budget: $25,000 (proposed) Partners: USU/CWEL Reach: All Savings/Metric: Completed white paper It is commendable that we strive to identify new ways to reduce water use and eliminate water waste. As part of this search for solutions, however, it is also important that impacts to other areas of environmental concern are incorporated into decision making. It is also important that as best as possible, unintended consequences are also considered. Synthetic grass has been presented as a solution to reducing water use in landscapes. When lifecycle water use is calculated, this premise seems more tenuous. Research provides information regarding impacts to human health, urban heat island effects, and water quality. USU, working with conservation staff, conducted a metastudy on research pertaining to artificial turf, with a desire to identify any potential negative impacts to soil health, surrounding landscape health, surrounding landscape water demand, and insect populations. Study outcome indicates there is little or no scientific research pertaining to these questions. As a result, a collaborative research study is being designed and proposed to conduct field and modeling studies to measure impacts, if any, of synthetic turf on landscape, soil, and beneficial insect health. Irrigation-Only Meter Budgets Review Timeline: 2026 Budget: $4,000 Partners: USU/CWEL Reach: utility-wide Savings/Metric: TBD In 2003, a seasonally tiered rate structure was adopted. A component of those rates was the establishment of rates specific for those properties with meters that serviced only outdoor, landscape water needs. Those accounts are referred to as Irrigation-Only Meter Accounts. In conjunction with USU, budgets based on square footage of landscaped areas and evapotranspiration were established for each property with irrigation-only meters. Improvements in best practices, irrigation system technologies (including irrigation controllers and sensors), and turfgrass may allow for revisions of established budgets without negatively affecting landscapes. Additionally, new conservation goals articulated in the Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Plan indicate a greater level of outdoor water conservation is necessary to achieve short- and long-term water use reduction goals. Accordingly, a review of the landscape water budgets is in order. 4.9.6 SLCDPU/CVWCD LANDSCAPE TRANSFORMATION ANALYSIS [R-] Timeline: 2020 to present Budget: NA Partners: CUWCD Reach: Service area Savings/Metric: Acreage converted; metered use reductions; reduced LIRs This practice will analyze water use reduction resulting from landscape transformations, including participation in CUWCD Landscape Transformation program, SLC TurfTrade, and non-participant landscape transformations. Working in coordination with CUWCD, team will track acreage conversion, water use reduction, and echo effect (impact of transformations on neighboring properties). SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-39 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.9.7 CII WATER DEPLETION EVALUATION AND CONSERVATION/GREAT SALT LAKE IMPACTS [R- 20, R-21] Timeline: 2026 Budget: TBD Partners: TBD Reach: service area Savings/Metric: TBD Building on the City and Utility’s commitment to protect Great Salt Lake (GSL), this practice will attempt to determine the impact of conservation on GSL water levels and also measure water depletion of various CII user classifications. 4.9.8 CII ANALYTICS [R-20] Timeline: 2017-2022 Budget: $135,000 Partners: NA Reach: CII Savings/Metric: TBD The service area is comprised of a diverse customer base, from suburban residential properties to high-density urban core dwellings, and from art spaces to tattoo parlors, health food stores to hospitals, model toy stores to airports, and gas stations to oil refineries. While our residential base is rich in its diversity, understanding water demand, use patterns, and barriers to behavioral change seem straightforward when compared to the diversity and complexity of our CII customers. Conservation staff began working on CII analytics in earnest in 2015. Since that time and working with a team of consultants, we have developed a method for gathering, analyzing, and assessing water use within the CII sector. With tools developed by Radian Inc., we can now begin to develop realistic water efficiency targets for commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) clients through better understanding of demand patterns, specific CII sector analysis, and comparisons to newly developing national standards data. Through this process advanced and automated reporting queries, automatic updates for consumption, weather, GIS, and AMI data with usage and other predefined alerts have been developed to provide valuable information to conservation program staff. By integrating existing commercial billing data and established NAICS codes with external data sources including GIS, AMI, and weather, a clearer picture of water demand emerges. This in turn helps support water use reduction efforts in the CII sector in a meaningful, actionable way. CII customers comprise roughly 12 percent of the connections within the service area, and their total water demand accounts for half of water use. In order to more fully integrate CII customers with conservation planning, it is necessary to understand how water is used in order to drive sustainable conservation within this sector to achieve long-term water reduction goals while still maintaining a vibrant, healthy economy. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-40 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-6 RESEARCH AND METRICS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected R-1 Water Check √ √ √ √ Promote and conduct lawn sprinkler check-ups for residential, commercial, and institutional properties √ (S) Estab. 1988; Partnered with USU 2007. Ongoing. $60,000 provided by MWDSLS annually. SLCDPU funds additional components, including APP, portal, and GIS capability ($45,000) Map and track use. MWDSL&S, USU/CWEL 47,000 gallons per participating residential customer annually R-2 EPA Residential Study √ Measure and evaluate water efficiency in newly constructed homes. √ Completed 201128 $20,000/ $360,000 grant and partners Map participating households. EPA Grant; Aquacraft, Inc., 8 participant cities NA NA R-3 Irrigation Controller Study √ √ √ Test and evaluate weather-based irrigation controllers. √ On-going (USU) NA Study outcomes inform recommend- dations USU/CWEL NA NA R-4 Irrigation Intervention Study √ Investigate impediments and barriers for homeowners in correcting irrigation system defects. √ Initial studies conducted 5/2015, 2018 Funded in FY2013-14 cons. budget; matched by USU NA USU NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed √ – Active 28 DeOreo, William, and Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. Analysis of Water Use in New Single-Family Homes. Boulder Co. January 2011 SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-41 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-6 RESEARCH AND METRICS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected R-5 WaterMAPS™ √ √ √ √ Utilize technology developed by USU to analyze potential water-use savings in landscape settings. √ Phase1: Study began August 2018. Phase 2: began implementing WaterMAPS™ software over service area. Phase 1: $49,000; Phase 2: $50,000 with EWIG match grant Monitor LIR by parcel, sector USU/CWEL; EWIG NA TBD R-6 Landscape Inventory √ √ √ √ Inventory alternative landscapes and quantify savings. √ 2019 NA Identify, map, measure, compare USU, SL Co Master Gardeners, community citizen scientists NA TBD R-7 Residential Plumbing Fixtures Inventory √ √ √ Inventory upgrades in plumbing fixtures and calculate quantity of remaining, older fixtures. TBD TBD TBD Compare water use between sites; refer to End Water Use Study TBD NA TBD R-8 Water Softener Study √ √ √ √ Research effects on water softener use on waste stream quality and impacts on water re-use water quality. TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD NA TBD ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-42 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-6 RESEARCH AND METRICS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected R-9 Supply and Demand Master Plan √ Analyze the impacts of conservation on the assumptions pertaining to storage and capacity. √ Component of 2020 Water Conservation Master Plan and Storage and Conveyance Master Plan SLCDPU Engineering - Consultant: Bowen Collins NA Since 2007 projected peak demand 270 MGD; current projection 200 MGD R-10 Climate Change, and Resiliency √ √ √ √ Review existing research on climate change; evaluate impacts of conservation on risk reduction and mitigation. √ Study currently being conducted - - NA NA R-11 Secondary Water Irrigation Master Plan √ √ √ √ Study availability, quality, and opportunity to use non-culinary water sources. C 2019 Water Resources Division budget and SLC Public Services Map locations using non- culinary water: by customer class and water source. SLC Public Services Consultant: Bowen Collins NA NA R-12 Commercial and Industrial Water Demand Study √ Evaluate C&I was use patterns and water-use reduction innovations. √ 2015 - Ongoing Phase 1 & 2: funded $10,000 each budget cycle 2015/16 and 2016/17 Phase 3 & 4: $50,000 funded in 2017/18 Analysis and monitor CII water use sector, account - NA TBD ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-43 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-6 RESEARCH AND METRICS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected R-13 Behavior and Policy Study √ Conduct studies linking consumer behavior and policy development. C Completed 2017/18: Can we map participant locations? USU Consumer study and iUtah study. NA NA R-14 Incentives √ √ √ √ Study incentive programs; investigate. ID TBD NA Survey/audit to determine reach/interest/ product. Map and track use. USU/CWEL, AWE, US- EPA, IA NA TBD R-15 Turf Study √ √ √ √ Turf bluegrass and alternative turfs to identify best qualities/applicatio ns. √ 2017/18; Golf Turf Study completed summer 2019 – recommend contract extension. Mapping begun Fall 2019. SLC TurfTrade launch 2022. $50,000 for study. No cost for SLC TurfTrade program Comparative water use Funded $25,000 in 2017/18 budget, with $25,000 match from USU. USDA- FRR NA TBD R-16 Program Effec- tiveness √ √ √ √ Where appropriate, develop methodology to measure practice impact. ID Ongoing TBD varies USU/CWEL NA NA R-17 Projected Demand Reduction √ √ √ √ Develop baseline and projected customer-class water demand. C Water Supply and Demand Master Plan Study (2022) SLCDPU Engineering WaterMAPS™, CII tool Consultant: Bowen Collins - 16,100 AF/ Annually ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 4-44 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR TABLE 4-6 RESEARCH AND METRICS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Status Implementation To Date Projected R-18 Artificial Turf Study √ √ √ √ Study impacts of artificial turf on landscape water need and soil health √ Metastudy completed 2019; field study proposed TBD - USU/CWEL NA NA R-19 Water Loss Control Study √ Complete loss audit based on AWWA M36 standards and implement findings. C Completed 2025, to be updated annually $70,000 Track percentage loss after implementatio n of plan components. NA - TBD R-20 CII Water Depletion Evaluation √ √ √ Research and evaluate methodologies for determining CII depletion levels. TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD NA NA R-21 GSL √ √ √ √ Evaluate and estimate water demand reductions related to Great Salt Lake TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed √ – Active SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 5-1 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATION PLAN: CHAPTER FIVE DRAFT CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATION PLAN 5.0 I NTRODUCTION This Communications and Outreach Plan (COP) serves two primary purposes: first, to actively gather input and feedback from customers and stakeholders during the development of the 2025 Water Conservation Plan; and second, to establish a clear, inclusive process for informing and engaging the community throughout the plan’s implementation. The COP outlines strategies designed to promote meaningful participation, transparency, and trust. Engagement efforts will include both in -person and digital tools to ensure broad accessibility. These efforts will be coordinated with key milestones to encourage feedback that can directly shape the plan and its implementation. While digital platforms—such as social media, surveys, and virtual meetings— will play a major role, we recognize that not all community members have reliable internet access. To ensure equitable participation, outreach will also include printed materials and postings at high-traffic public locations such as libraries, recreation centers, parks, and golf courses. By combining modern communication tools with trusted, community-based engagement methods, this plan ensures that all voices have the opportunity to be heard and that the final Water Conservation Plan reflects the shared values and priorities of the community it serves. 5.1 G OALS AND O BJECTIVES To ensure the desired outcomes, the communications and outreach goals are to: • Create meaningful opportunities for community feedback during the development of the Water Conservation Plan; • Identify and involve a wide range of stakeholders, ensuring that all community voices are represented; • Facilitate the transfer of technical information to educate and encourage public engagement; SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 Page 5-2 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATION PLAN: CHAPTER FIVE • Provide timely and transparent responses to public questions and feedback; • Establish credibility and build trust in the planning process; • Build partnerships with municipalities within the service area; • Achieve public understanding and support for the plan’s adoption and implementation. 5.2 S TAKEHOLDERS AND S PECIAL I NTERESTS Stakeholder engagement is a cornerstone of this plan. In addition to the general public, special outreach will be made to: • Internal Stakeholders: SLC Parks and Public Lands (Forestry, Open Space, Parks), SLC Golf, SLC Planning, SLCDPU Engineering, Sustainability, etc. • Municipal Partners: Millcreek, Holladay, Murray, South Salt Lake, Cottonwood Heights, Salt Lake County. • Advisory and Oversight Bodies: Public Utility Advisory Committee (PUAC), Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy. • Political Leadership: SLC Mayor’s Office, City Council, and mayoral offices of partner cities. • Other Agencies and Advocacy Groups: Utah Division of Water Resources, Jordan Valley Water Conservation District, AWWA, USU Extension, environmental nonprofits, and community advocacy organizations. Meetings, presentations, surveys, and regular updates will be tailored to fit the interests and level of involvement of each stakeholder group. A full stakeholder matrix is available in the project documentation. 5.3 M EDIA AND S OCIAL P LATFORMS A multi-channel media strategy will ensure outreach is inclusive, engaging, and far-reaching: • Website: All project information, including draft plans and FAQs, will be posted at slc.gov/utilities/water-conservation-plan-2025, with links provided on other City pages. • News Releases: Coordinated with the SLC Mayor’s Office to announce project milestones, draft releases, and public comment periods. • Blogs: Stories and updates will be posted on City and partner blogs to provide both technical content and human-interest narratives. • Facebook / Instagram / X (formerly Twitter): o One post per week over a six-month period. • Content includes project updates, meeting notices, water-saving tips, and community stories. • Interactive Q&A formats and reposting from partner organizations will extend reach. • YouTube / SLCtv Media: Short video vignettes and a 2-minute animated video will communicate plan highlights. A recorded virtual townhall will be posted here. • Community Media: Outreach will include local radio, the Salt Lake Chamber’s “Building Utah” podcast, and communications through schools, libraries, and partner organizations. 5.4 A VENUES OF C OMMUNICATION Community input will be collected via: • Digital surveys (including QR codes on fliers and signs) • Public meetings (in-person and virtual) • Email, phone, and social media messaging • Comment cards and signage at events and public locations All feedback will be compiled, analyzed, and shared with the project team. A final outreach summary will include an executive summary of community feedback, a record of comments received, and a list of outreach activities conducted. 5.5 O NGOING C OMMUNICATIONS AND O UTREACH Strategies employed during plan development will continue over the duration of the plan implementation to enhance public understanding, program acceptance, and active engagement. SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-1 APPENDICES APPENDICES SLCDPU Water Service Area Map MWDSLS ULS Report 2024. Table 4: Salt Lake City Water Usage and Conservation Trends State Division of Water Resources 2025 Water Conservation Plan Checklist ANSI/AWWA GA80 -13 Water Conservation Program Operation and Management Standard, First Edition July 1, 2013 Water Conservancy Budget 2025/26 17.16.092: Water Shortage Management Policy 21A -48 -055 Water Efficient Landscaping Standards Public Utility Advisory Committee Minutes/Water Conservation Plan Discussion Minutes of the Meeting of the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy Board Minutes/Water Conservation Plan Minutes of the Salt Lake City Council Fourmal Meeting Salt Lake City Council Transmittal, Minutes and Resolution M36 Water Audit Summaries (2022 -24) SLCDPU Drought Contingency Plan Summary Impacts of Water Conservation on Rates Technical Memorandum, 2025 Water Conservation Program Manager Job Description Conservation Action Plans Residential Water Sales Targets Links & References Glossary of Terms, Abbreviations & Acronyms A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-2 APPENDICES A. SLCDPU W ATER S ERVICE A REA M AP PUBLIC UTILITIES SERVICE AREA SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-3 APPENDICES B. MWDSLS ULS R EPORT 2024, T ABLE 4: S ALT L AKE C ITY W ATER U SAGE AND C ONSERVATION T RENDS TABLE 4 - SALT LAKE CITY WATER USAGE AND CONSERVATION TRENDS DOCUMENTATION OF CONSERVATION PERFORMANCE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE & SANDY Year Without Consideration of Worker Population Population Adjusted Based on Worker Population Relative to WFRC Average ULS Goal (gpcd) State Goal (gpcd) Population Annual Metered Sales (gallons) Per Capita Use (gpcd) Population Employment Average Employment Based on Population Worker Population Above Averages Total Equivalent Population Annual Metered Sales (gallons) Per Capita Use (gpcd) New State Goal (gpcd) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 287,431 287,405 287,379 287,353 287,327 287,300 288,445 289,765 290,671 291,312 291,953 309,664 310,387 310,516 311,066 312,281 316,028 319,820 323,658 327,542 331,473 335,450 324,022 325,683 327,352 32,479,397,940 31,156,592,852 27,795,222,972 25,866,715,160 25,709,610,476 23,230,740,000 25,546,829,220 28,409,000,000 24,713,538,800 24,339,970,111 24,684,871,280 22,851,774,007 27,244,926,535 26,132,150,545 24,536,287,605 23,694,971,212 24,524,178,919 25,515,449,124 25,371,120,280 22,597,819,761 25,648,647,896 22,407,825,138 22,654,139,073 21,327,273,801 25,384,118,751 310 297 265 247 245 222 243 269 233 229 232 202 240 231 216 208 213 219 215 189 212 183 192 179 212 287,431 287,405 287,379 287,353 287,327 287,300 288,445 289,765 290,671 291,312 291,953 309,664 310,387 310,516 311,066 312,281 316,028 319,820 323,658 327,542 331,473 335,450 324,022 325,683 327,352 255,161 259,575 264,066 268,634 275,242 280,500 283,762 285,060 285,951 286,582 287,213 283,183 283,844 284,292 284,740 286,633 290,072 293,553 297,076 300,641 304,249 307,899 401,343 407,806 411,821 148,889 148,876 148,862 148,849 148,835 148,821 149,415 150,098 150,568 150,900 151,232 160,406 160,780 160,847 161,132 151,144 152,958 154,793 156,651 158,530 160,433 162,358 147,754 148,511 149,273 106,272 110,699 115,204 119,785 126,407 131,679 134,348 134,962 135,383 135,682 135,981 122,777 123,064 123,444 123,608 135,489 137,115 138,760 140,425 142,110 143,816 145,542 253,589 259,294 262,548 312,192 313,198 314,221 315,263 316,780 317,981 319,748 321,211 322,215 322,926 323,637 338,271 339,061 339,279 339,867 343,850 347,976 352,152 356,377 360,654 364,982 369,362 376,008 378,838 381,174 32,479,397,940 31,156,592,852 27,795,222,972 25,866,715,160 25,709,610,476 23,230,740,000 25,546,829,220 28,409,000,000 24,713,538,800 24,339,970,111 24,684,871,280 22,851,774,007 27,244,926,535 26,132,150,545 24,536,287,605 23,694,971,212 24,524,178,919 25,515,449,124 25,371,120,280 22,597,819,761 25,648,647,896 22,407,825,138 22,654,139,073 21,327,273,801 25,384,118,751 285 273 242 225 222 200 219 242 210 207 209 185 220 211 198 189 193 199 195 172 193 166 165 154 182 285 283 281 280 278 276 274 273 271 269 267 265 264 262 260 258 257 255 253 251 249 248 247 246 245 285 282 279 276 274 271 268 265 262 259 257 254 251 248 245 242 239 237 234 231 228 225 222 219 217 210 209 207 206 204 203 201 200 198 197 SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-4 APPENDICES C. S TATE D IVISION OF W ATER R ESOURCES 2025 W ATER C ONSERVATION P LAN C HECKLIST State Div of Water Resources 2025 Water Conservation Plan Checklist Section Requirement Documentation System Profile 1 Population, Serive Area, Existing Water Users 1.1 Provide map of current service area. Page 1-2 and Appendix B 1.2 List number of M&I water connections, categorized by type: (Residential/Domestic, Commercial, Institutional, Industrial, Unmetered) Table 2-3 2 Supply 2.1 Chart current water supply, categorized by source (Wells, Springs, Surface, Purchased, Exchanged) Section 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 2.2 Describe when applicable, occurrences of groundwater depletion, aquifer recharge (artificial and natural) and storage and recovery practices. No groundwater depletion has occurred. Aquifer Recharge and Recovery program discussed on page 1-5 and 1-6. 2.3 Provide comparison graph, which includes a) reliable supply through 2050, b) current water use projections and c) efficient use. Figure 1-4 2.4 If after reaching conservation targets, use exceeds supply, list future water sources and cost projections. Not applicable. Please see the SLC Water Supply and Demand Master Plan. 3 Water Measurement and Billing SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-5 APPENDICES State Div of Water Resources 2025 Water Conservation Plan Checklist Section Requirement Documentation 3.1 List current water measurement methods and practices. (percent of metered connections by type, reading frequency, calibration schedule, new development laws & replacement schedule) 1) 100% of connections are metered; 2) Meters are read roughly every 30 days; 3) Solid-state multijet and ultrasonic meters are sealed in factory and calibrated to AWWA Standards and not calibrated in field. Flow tests may be conductyed in field. when meters do not perform to AWWA standards they are replaced ; Non-AMI meters 1.5" and up are field tested at a rate of appox 1000 meters per year. 4) All new connections are required to be metered per code; 5) All 3/4" and 1" meters within SLCDPU service area are scheduled to be replaced with AMI within next 6 years.Larger meters are replaced as needed, though 85% of 1.5" meters and up are OMNI C1 or OMNI F2. 3.2 List water (by volume: Acre-Feet or M Gallons) and revenue losses and the control practices implemented to minimize both. If utilizing the AWWA Free Water Audit Software© please list water audit validity grade. See M36 Summary in Appendices L. Current system loss is estimated to be 11% of production volume, or 8,036 AF. Water audit validity grade is 65/100. Implementation of M36 was completed 2022, 2023, and 2024. 3.3 Include a copy of the system's water rate structure in the WCP. For a retail water supplier, as defined in Section 19 -4- 102, the retail water supplier's rate structure that is: (A) adopted by the retail water supplier's governing body in accordance with Section 73-10-32.5; and (B) current as of the day the retail water supplier files a water conservation plan https://www.slc.gov/utilities/what-new-rates-mean/ 3.4 List leak detection and repair methods, include details on a loss prevention plan if applicable See M36 Water Audit summary pages (Appendices L) 4 Water Use 4.1 Gather 2005-current records of potable and non-potable water use by sector and service area population. Please check for accuracy and consistency with what is submitted to Water Rights at: www.waterrights.utah.gov/wateruse/WaterUseList.asp Table 2-1 and Table 2-4. SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-6 APPENDICES State Div of Water Resources 2025 Water Conservation Plan Checklist Section Requirement Documentation 4.2 List current total potable and non-potable water deliveries by volume (please specify volume: Acre-Feet or M Gallons) categorized by type: (Residential/Domestic, Commercial, Institutional, Industrial, Wholesale and Un-metered). Table 2-1 and Table 2-4. 4.3 Chart current per capita water use in gallons per capita per day (GPCD) by type and use: (Total water deliveries/365/Total service area population=GPCD). Table 2-6 and Figure 2-14. 4.4 Graph your water efficiency progress: Take 2005-today, total potable and non-potable water use by sector and population records and go to www.conservewater.utah.gov/compliance.html for a Conservation Goal Calculator and Graph. Then input data and produce graph for WCP. Figure 2-1 and Figure 3-2. Conservation Practices 5 Conservation Practices 5.1 Provide update on ongoing practices and list and detail all ongoing and new conservation practices. When implementing new practices provide costs, partnerships and implementation timeline. (BMP options at www.conservewater.utah.gov/compliance.html) See Chapter 4, Tables 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6 5.2 Provide names and contact information for those responsible for meeting efficiency goals. (i.e. Administrative staff, conservation coordinator(s), conservation committee members, Mayor, town council and/or board members.) Stephanie Duer, SLCDPU Water Conservation Program Manager stephanie.duer@slc.gov 801.483.6860 5.3 Share evaluation of existing water conservation best management effectiveness Over the past 18 years of active program implementation, SLCDPU has seen a 24% reduction in total water use; 26% reduction in peak demand (see Chapter 2 Highlights). Achievements have exceeded goals set by Gov's Office, State regional goals, and CUP Contract. See Figure 3-2. 5.4 List new Best Management Practice(s) and implementation plan(s). See Tables 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6. 5.5 List and detail all Conservation Public Awareness practices implemented. See Table 4-2 . SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-7 APPENDICES State Div of Water Resources 2025 Water Conservation Plan Checklist Section Requirement Documentation 5.6 List and detail all Education/Training practices implemented. See Table 4-2 . 5.7 List and detail all Rebates/Incentives/Rewards currently implemented. See Table 4-3 . 5.8 List and detail conservation Ordinances & Standards currently implemented. See Table 4-5 . 5.9 List water waste prohibition and model landscape ordinances. See Appendices G. 5.10 Include a copy of the system's drought contingency plan. See Appendices F and O. 5.11 List Reviews or Updates to City Codes/Requirements pertaining to Water Waste Prohibition, Model Landscape Ordinance, Water Shortage Plan, Climate Resiliency Plan See Table 4-5. Next Steps 6 Public Meetings and Adoption 6.1 After receiving approval from DWRe to move forward with Public/Board/Council Adoption. Following adoption, please email the follwoin to waterwise@utah.gov: * Final approved Water Conservation Plan * Water Conservation Plan Resolution/Adoption signatures * Public meeting notice & approved meeting minutes See Appendices J and K. 6.2 Post the water conservation plan on a public website. See Utility website: www.slc.gov/utilities/water-conservation-plan-2025 SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-8 APPENDICES D. ANSI/AWWA G480 -13 W ATER C ONSERVATION P ROGRAM O PERATION AND M ANAGEMENT S TANDARD , F IRST E DITION . J ULY 1, 2013 Section Requirement Documentation To Do Date Completed 4.1 Regulatory Requirements 4.1.1 Demonstrate meet or exceed applicable regulatory requirements for jurisdiction: 1) Utah Water Conservation Plan Act 73.10.32: Submit Water Conservation Plan to State DWRe every five years 2) Utah Governor’s Conservation Goal (non-mandatory): reduce water use by 25% from baseline year 2001 (Exceeded) 3) CUP Conservation Goal (Exceeded) 1) Have submitted Water Conservation Master Plans (WCMP) as required and to standards 2) have consistently exceeded State-wide conservation goals (see 2020 WCMP Chapter 3, Figure 3-2 ) 3) Have consistently exceeded ULS Contractual Conservation Goal (see 2020 WCMP Chapter 3, Figure 3-2) 1) 2025 Water Conservation Master Plan in process 1) 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014, 2020 2) See Figure 3-2 3) on-going 4.2 Top Level Organizational Functions 4.2.1 Staff for conservation initiatives 4.2.1 Assign dedicated water conservation coordinator Provide job description of staff person assigned duties, Appendices O June, 2001. Last update 2/15/2024. 4.2.2 Water conservation planning 4.2.2 Create, implement, and maintain a water conservation plan www.slc.gov/utilities/water-conservation-plan-2025 2025 Plan Update to be completed by Oct 2025 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014 , 2020 Plan guided by AWWA M52 – AWWA Water Conservation Programs – a Planning Manual or some other guidance Refer to this list and corresponding references. See Appendices L. 2022, 2023, 2024 Plan must: 1. Address water conservation across all relevant customer categories See 2020 WCMP Chapter 3, and in particular Table 3- 3. See Chapter 4, Tables 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6. See 2025 Water Conservation Master Plan Completed 2025 SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-9 APPENDICES Section Requirement Documentation To Do Date Completed Plan should include: 1. Clearly defined and measurable program performance goals 2. A suite of benchmarks that can be used to assess progress in implementation of the program 3. A supply assessment 4. Water conservation strategy 5. Water conservation goals 6. Plan evaluation 7. Ongoing plan maintenance See 2025 WCMP 1. Chapter 3, 2. Chapter 3, Table 3-3 3. Chapter 2 4. Chapter 4, Tables 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6 5. Chapter 3 6. Chapter 4 7. Chapter 4 Ongoing with each Plan implementation 4.2.3 Water conservation in integrated resources planning 4.2.3 Treat conservation equally to other water supply options Water Conservation participated in or led development of the 2022 Major Conveyance Study, Supply and Demand Study, Water Resources Data Study, 2025 Water Shortage Contingency, 2023 40- Year Water Supply Plan, Growing Water Smart (2025) The years these studies were updated or completed varies; engagement in implementation is ongoing. Where appropriate, include water made available through conservation as part of the supply portfolio when conducting supply and demand forecasting analyses See SLC Water Supply and Demand Master Plan, and 2022 WCMP Chapter 2, Figure 1-5 2022 4.2.4 Public information and education program SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-10 APPENDICES Section Requirement Documentation To Do Date Completed 4.2.4 Develop or incorporate into existing programs information efforts aimed at: • raising awareness • fostering a culture of conservation and behavior change www.slc.gov/utilities/water-conservation-plan-2025, Chapter 4, Section 4.5 On-going Components of program should include: • Effectively communicating the value of water • Information on methods and opportunities for reducing consumption • Deliver consistent and persistent messages www.slc.gov/utilities/water-conservation-plan-2025, Chapter 5. On-going 4.2.5 Water waste ordinance 4.2.5 Develop or support creation, implementation, and maintenance of an enforceable water waste ordinance www.slc.gov/utilities/water-conservation-plan-2025, Chapter 4, Section 4.8.1 Proposed in 2025 Water Conservation Master Plan. 4.3 Internal Utility Actions and Requirements 4.3.1 Metering Practices 4.3.1 Implement metering practices that promote conservation, including metering of: • All water sources • All service connections Salt Lake City has been fully metered on the user side since the 1920s. Monthly billing to all of its customers commenced shortly after. Computerized billing began in the 1970s. Bills are now available as mailing or electronically. Most source waters are metered at treatment locations. Completed 1920, On-going SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-11 APPENDICES Section Requirement Documentation To Do Date Completed 4.3.1.1 Universal metering Move towards implementing universal metering of all service (private and public) connections Metering completed in 1920s. Currently converting to AMI technology. Remaining AMI conversion expected to take 4 to 6 years Fully metered, 1920; On-going for AMI implementation Establish goal to meter 100 percent of all service connections SLCDPU has been fully metered since 1920’s. 1920s 4.3.1.2 Source water metering Implement metering of all sources including: • Groundwater • Surface water • Reclaimed water Water sources are metered. On-going 4.3.2 Rate structures 4.3.2 Use a nonpromotional water rate that provides incentive for customers to reduce water use http://www.slcdocs.com/utilities/PDF%20Files/Utility Rates/WaterrateswebCurrent.pdf 2003 4.3.3 Billing practices 4.3.3 Bill customers based on metered use http://www.slcdocs.com/utilities/PDF%20Files/Utility Rates/WaterrateswebCurrent.pdf 1920’s 4.3.3.1 Billing frequency Bill at least bi-monthly Billing occurs on monthly basis (see above attachment) http://www.slcdocs.com/utilities/PDF%20Files/Utility Rates/WaterrateswebCurrent.pdf 1920’s 4.3.3.2 Reporting Consumption Clearly indicate units for consumption See example bill: 2025-05_UtilityBill-Explanation-presentation-r2 Bills have shown consumption since 2003; Updated 2025. SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-12 APPENDICES Section Requirement Documentation To Do Date Completed 4.3.4 Landscape efficiency program 4.3.4 Establish a program to improve and maintain water efficient landscapes and irrigation (See Chapter 4 for program details) Many programs support landscape water efficiency, including: Water Check WaterMAPSTM SLC Landscape Best Practices Manual Landscape Code 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers Water Checks since 1998; WaterMAPSTM customer reports since 2023; Landscape code updated 2023. 4.3.4.1 Design, installation, and maintenance practices Develop program intended to maximize water efficiency through proper design, installation, and maintenance of new and existing landscapes and irrigation systems. Programs may include: • Audits • Financial incentives • Design information • Ordinances • Development standards • Education • Examples of how to properly design and operate irrigation systems Water Check WaterMAPSTM SLC Gardenwise (www.slcgardenwise.com) 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers, parkstrip and front yard codes SLC Landscape Best Practices Manual SLC TurfTrade Learning Labs Rebates Water Checks since 1998; SLC TurfTrade since 2022; WaterMAPSTM since 2023; Landscape code updated 2023. 4.3.4.2 Irrigation scheduling • Encourage customers to water based upon plant needs • Discourage customers from overwatering or watering during the times of day when water loss to evaporation and wind drift is greatest Plant and Hydrozone list SLC Gardenwise (www.slcgardenwise.com) Code 21A.48 Landscapes and Buffers, hydrozoning Lawn watering guide Water Checks WaterMAPSTM Water Waste ordinance Water Checks since 1998; SLC TurfTrade since 2022; WaterMAPSTM since 2023; Landscape code updated 2023. 4.3.4.3 Landscape water budgets • Where appropriate, implement landscape water budgets to address water use and encourage efficiency See Attachment: Irrigation-Only Meters and Rates https://www.slc.gov/utilities/what-new-rates- mean/ 2003 SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-13 APPENDICES Section Requirement Documentation To Do Date Completed 4.3.5 Distribution system and pressure management 4.3.5.1 Water utility audit Conduct an annual audit of the system using AWWA/IWA Water Audit Method, including AWWA Water Audit Reporting Worksheet See Appendices L. 2022, 2023, 2024 4.3.5.2 Water loss control program Develop a water loss control program Leak detection and repair program implemented 2025. See Chapter 4, Section 4.7.3 and Tables 4-3 and 4-4. On-going 4.4 External Policy Requirements 4.4.1 Water efficiency in building codes and standards 4.4.1 Encourage: • adoption of water efficient codes and standards • adoption at both state and local level Provide evidence that water efficiency is addressed in local building codes for new buildings. (5.1.8) 21A.48 Landscapes and Buffers 2023 4.4.2 Promote water efficient products and services 4.4.2 Promote the use and maintenance of water efficient: • Products • Practices • Services Water Stewardship Calendar Water Check program CUP Rebates partner On-going 4.5 Wholesale Agency Requirements 4.5 Directly implement: • 4.1 Regulatory Requirements • 4.2.4 Public Information and Education Program • 4.3 Internal Utility Actions and Requirements N/A May provide: • Regional coordination on conservation issues and program • Technical assistance to their retail agencies N/A May manage conservation activities that are more effectively implemented on a regional scale N/A SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-14 APPENDICES E. W ATER C ONSERVATION B UDGET 2025/26 Program Cost center Contract Number 24/25 Budget 25/26 Budget Notes Budget Total (excluding personnel) 51701 $ 671,598.00 Public Relations 51701 100,000 $ 100,000 Water Week, plumbing repair how-to guides, Wyland Foundation Mobile Water Learning Lab (grades 3-5), conservation strategic plan, conservation messaging, etc. Other Prof Services 51701 $ 207,000.00 Water Check support team CA-004072 (2024 Water Check Season) 22,000 $ 22,000.00 Agreement with MWDSLS. Perform full audits on all golf sites; ground truth mapping; post-verify SLC TurfTrade; other CI sites. WaterMAPSTM CA-003891 (Dec 2026) 70,000 $ 70,000.00 Perform updated imagery analysis; areas approx. 10sq mi. based on customer tier, customer LIR, or other criteria. Goal is to update all residential properties with updated imagery. Contract is for 140,000, to provide two years of WaterMAPSTM updates. CII Tool In progress 0 $ 45,000 Analytics dashboard upgrades. Conservation Plan In progress $90,000 $25,000 Will also close up M36 and drought plan with parallel data. Conservation Plan In progress $50,000 Funds to hire a consultant to support and facilitate public outreach of conservation plan and water shortage plan. USU/Golf Turf Study CA-003369 (Dec 2025) 50,000 $ 50,000.00 Turf trials; GCSAA grant opportunity. Contract extended one year. GardenWise Website update 0 $12,000.00 Increase functionality; update images; add sites; etc. USU/Climate Center Weather Station Calibration signed, awaiting recording 0 $8,500.00 USU Weather Station Calibration for 5 sites. Completing 10-year contract; these funds will need to be allocated annually for duration on contract. Previously part of the WaterMAPSTM contract. Other Expenses 51701 $ 63,200.00 Grass seed 50,000 $ 23,000.00 1400– 2000 grass seed. Cost returned to utility. Rain barrels 0 $ 40,200.00 600 barrels. This item may not need to be funded if we continue agreement with Upcycle Products as they collect payment and there is no Utility expense. Landscape Transformation Grants $100,000 To facilitate landscape transformations and indoor fixture upgrades for qualifying households. Out Ground Maintenance Supplies 51701 $ 268,000.00 SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-15 APPENDICES Program Cost center Contract Number 24/25 Budget 25/26 Budget Notes Landscape Transformations 51701 100,000 $100,000.00 Landscape upgrades to improve efficiencies. Utility sites: 50K sqft of lawn that could be replaced. 20K lawn that could be converted to alternate vegetation (current 100K for lawn and irrigation), and $100K for addition vegetation transformations Landscape Maintenance Contract Completing bid packet for contract 25,000.00 $ 68,000.00 Maintenance for Greater Ave and 900 South (1/2) including mulch and gravel. Line items in Stormwater, Water, and WR for additional sites Landscape Repairs $25,000.00 For unanticipated irrigation and landscape repairs. 900 South Wetland $60,000.00 To remediate damage to site due to unauthorized occupancy Licensing Fees 51701 $ 26,398.00 GardenSoft 2500 $ 2,500.00 License, upgrades, maintenance AWE Home Audit 7500 $ 7,500.00 License, upgrades, maintenance CII Tool Service and Upgrades 12,798 $ 12,798.00 License, upgrades, maintenance (FY21/22 paid thru Scotts Grant) This is not currently under contract and there has been no expenditure. AWE Sales Force Platform 3600 $ 3600.00 Platform to support rebate programs. Small tools and Equipment 51701 500 (also cii audit kits) $ 500.00 Hand tools, audit supplies (measuring cups, flow gauges, etc) Memberships 51701 2300 $ 2,500.00 AWE, UWCF In City Conventions and Workshops 51701 500 $ 500.00 Out of town travel 51701 3500 $ 3500.00 Typically WaterSMART Innovations SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-16 APPENDICES F. 17.16.092: W ATER S HORTAGE M ANAGEMENT P OLICY A. Declaration Of Policy: Given the prevailing semiarid climate of the region, the limited water resources available to Salt Lake City, and the vitally important role an adequate supply of municipal and industrial (M&I) water plays in maintaining a healthy and safe environment in the community, it is hereby declared to be the policy of Salt Lake City that, during times of water shortage caused by drought, facilities failure or any other condition or event, M&I water usage within the city's water service area shall be managed, regulated, prioritized and restricted in such a manner as to prevent the wasteful or unreasonable use of water, and to preserve at all times an adequate supply of M&I water for essential uses. B. Water Shortage Contingency Plan: The director of the department of public utilities shall cause to be prepared and implemented a water shortage contingency plan (the "plan"). Such plan may be included as part of, or prepared separately from, the water conservation master plan provided for in section 73-10-32, Utah Code Annotated, and shall be revised from time to time as conditions and circumstances warrant. The plan shall, among other things: 1) establish graduated stages of water shortage severity, and 2) establish appropriate M&I water use restriction response measures for each stage. The plan shall include guidelines and criteria for determining the appropriate stage to be implemented under various water supply, delivery, and demand conditions. Each plan stage of water shortage, and the accompanying use restrictions, shall be implemented by declaration of the mayor, upon the advice and recommendation of the director pursuant to the plan guidelines. C. Compliance: Compliance with the water use restriction response measures called for under any applicable plan stage may be either recommended or mandatory, as specified in the plan. The plan may not provide for mandatory restrictions on residential or commercial customers until either: 1) the projected water supply from all sources is sixty percent (60%) or less of the average annual water supply, or 2) the director otherwise determines that, in the exercise of his or her best professional judgment, the city is unable to meet anticipated essential water needs without implementing such mandatory measures. D. Enforcement: The director shall enforce compliance with all mandatory response measures set forth in the plan through the imposition and collection of civil fines, as provided in section 17.16.792 of this chapter. Nothing herein or in section 17.16.792 of this chapter shall prevent the city from exercising any other available means, either in law or equity, of enforcing compliance with the plan. E. Plan Nonexclusive: The creation and implementation of the plan shall be in addition to, and not exclusive of, any other steps taken by the city from time to time to conserve water or manage limited water supplies, including mayoral proclamations issued pursuant to section 17.16.080 of this chapter. (Ord. 50-03 § 1, 2003) SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-17 APPENDICES G. S ALT L AKE C ITY C ODE 21A -48 -055 W ATER E FFICIENT L ANDSCAPING S TANDARDS Link to most current code: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/saltlakecityut/latest/saltlakecity_ut /0-0-0-70284 SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-18 APPENDICES H. P UBLIC U TILITY A DVISORY C OMMITTEE M INUTES /W ATER C ONSERVATION P LAN D ISCUSSION SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-19 APPENDICES I. M INUTES OF THE M EETING OF THE OF THE M ETROPOLITAN W ATER D ISTRICT OF S ALT L AKE & S ANDY B OARD M INUTES /W ATER C ONSERVATION P LAN SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-20 APPENDICES J. M INUTES OF THE S ALT L AKE C ITY C OUNCIL F ORMAL M EETING SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-21 APPENDICES K. S ALT L AKE C ITY C OUNCIL T RANSMITTAL , M INUTES , AND R ESOLUTION SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-22 APPENDICES L. M36 W ATER A UDIT S UMMARIES 69,5 2 3 90 428 3,556 8036 Billed M e t e r e d C o n s u m p t i o n ( B M A C ) Bille d U n m e t e r e d C o n s u m p t i o n ( B U A C ) * Unbil l e d M e t e r e d C o n s u m p t i o n ( U M A C ) Unbi l l e d U n m e t e r e d C o n s u m p t i o n ( U U A C ) Wate r E x P o r t e d Water U n a c c o u n t e d F o r Water and Loss Control Audit THE WATER AND LOSS CONTROL AUDIT IS A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF HOW WATER IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN SALT LAKE CITY’S CULINARY WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. S A L T L A K E C I T Y ’ S W A T E R : TOTAL SYSTEM INPUT: 81,633 AC-FT TOTAL WATER USAGE ACCOUNTED FOR: 73,597 AC-FT TOTAL WATER UNACCOUNTED FOR: 8,036 AC-FT WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?AND WHERE DOES IT GO? As part of the City’s overall conservation efforts, understanding how water is accounted for is a priority. An audit was completed using methodology established in Manual M36 – Water Audits and Loss Control Programs from the American Water Works Association (AWWA). Completing this audit will help the City understand the performance of their water system and what inefficiencies may be present. The audit also helps estimate the revenue impacts of identified system losses and develops recommended actions to reduce losses. Treatment Plants (City Creek, Parleys, Big Cottonwood) Unbilled Unmetered Consumption (UUAC) Wells Water Unaccounted For Water Exported Tunnels and Springs Unbilled Metered Consumption (UMAC) MWDSLS Wholesale Purchases MWDLS Wholesale Purchases 42,666 AC-FT Billed Accounts 69,523 AC-FT Unbilled Accounts 90 AC-FT Water Used for Maintenance 428 AC-FT Water Unaccounted For 8,036 AC-FT Water Exported to Holliday Water & Others 3,556 AC-FTTreatment Plants 33,907 AC-FT 16 Wells 3,869 AC-FT Tunnels & Springs 1,191 AC-FT Billed Metered Consumption (BMAC) WATER UNACCOUNTED FOR IS EQUAL TO THE VOLUME USED BY 14,000 RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLDS 2022 DATA SET Meter & Data Handling Losses Other LossesNon-Revenue Water HOW VALID IS SALT LAKE CITY’S DATA? HOW DO SALT LAKE CITY SYSTEM LOSSES COMPARE TO OTHER SYSTEMS? Performance Indicator When compared to available AWWA data, SLC is about at the 75th percentile for system loss. This would suggest that SLC is performing poorly. However, it should be clarified that this percentile is based on an AWWA data set consisting of only entities with a Level 1 validated water audit. As a result, the data being used for comparison is coming from entities that have had several years to minimize water loss and work on developing high quality data. Many of these utilities provide indoor water only and consequently have much smaller systems (per capita) than SLC. For comparison, a target goal for system losses of 8 percent (a good initial goal for utilities beginning to work on reducing system loss) has been added to the data comparison graphic. As can be seen, this target ends up around the 60th percentile, verifying the aggressive nature of the AWWA dataset. 90th %ile 90th %ile 90th %ile10th %ile 10th %ile 10th %ileUnit Total Losses:Unit Apparent Losses:Unit Other Losses: 75 th % i l e SLC Goal 75 th % i l e 75 th % i l e Med i a n Med i a n Med i a n 25th %ile 25th %ile 25th %ile 85.1 gal/conn/day 26.5 gal/conn/day 58.6 gal/conn/day Data Validity Score: 67 See Loss Control Planning for Tier Details Tier I (≤25) Tier II (26-50)Tier III (51-70) Tier IV (71-90) Tier V (91-100) Data Validity Tier: Tier III (51-70) Data Validity SLC Goal SLC GoalCurrent SLC Losses Current SLC Losses Current SLC Losses Result is above 90th %ile Result is above 90th %ile What does that mean? Once data was gathered and input into the AWWA software, a data scoring matrix was completed to give SLC a sense of this audit’s data validity. Data gradings are user-selected ratings of the validity—or trustworthiness—of the individual volumetric and system data inputs. SLC’s data validity score (DVS) was calculated to be 65/100, thus landing in Tier III, an intermediate level of data validity. At this level, AWWA indicates that the data is sufficiently trustworthy that an entity may begin to launch loss control interventions in specific areas, use performance indicators to track its ongoing loss control performance, and compare its data with other water utilities. Despite this moderate data validity score, there are still some reservations about the City’s data. Most of these reservations center on the City’s metering data. During the audit process there was some difficulty pulling consistent data from the City’s system. On several occasions, it was discovered that the data included multiple duplicate records or was missing records provided as part of previous requests. The database is also missing clear identifiers of certain important types of water use. Improving the documentation of records will allow the City to have more confidence in the remainder of the conclusions contained here. WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL VALUE OF UNACCOUNTED FOR WATER IN SALT LAKE CITY? Unknown Losses Total Volume of Unaccounted For Water = 8,554 AC-FT/YR Total Value of Unaccounted For Water = $6,389,058/YR Vo l u m e ( A C - F T / Y R ) Co s t ( D o l l a r s ) Unauthorized Consumption Systematic Data Handling Errors Meter & Data Handling Losses Basis of Valuation*Volume AC-FT/YR Value $/YR Other LossesNon-Revenue Water Unbilled Unmetered Authorized Consumption Metering Inaccuracies Unknown Losses Including System Leaks 5,535 AC-FT Systematic Data Handling Errors 174 AC-FT Water Theft 174 AC-FT Metering Inaccuracies 2,153 AC-FT U N A C C O U N T E D F O R W A T E R C O M P O N E N T S S U M M A R Y UNACCOUNTED FOR WATER IN SALT LAKE CITY HAS A VALUE OF ABOUT $6 MILLION. ALTHOUGH ONLY A PORTION OF THIS REPRESENTS REAL WATER THAT CAN BE RECOVERED, THIS IS STILL A SUBSTANTIAL ASSET THAT SHOULD BE BETTER UNDERSTOOD. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $0 2,501 $2,586,947 6,053 $3,802,111 8,554 $6,389,058 CRUC VPCBlended U N A C C O U N T E D F O R W A T E R *Based on Customer Retail Unit Charge (CRUC) or Variable Production Cost (VPC) per AWWA M36 methodology. Apparent Losses 27% Water Theft 2% Systematic Data Handling Errors 2% Real Losses 69% Apparent Losses Water Theft Systematic Data Handling Errors Real Losses 1 The number of stars (“ *”) indicate the relative potential impact the recommendation could have on reducing losses in the SLCDPU system. The more stars, the greater the potential impact. WHAT CAN SALT LAKE CITY DO TO REDUCE WATER LOSSES? A number of potential actions have been identified to make improvement relative to the system audit. This includes potential actions in three separate categories: gathering improved data to provide better understanding of system losses, improving processes to increase confidence in the validity of the collected data, and making physical improvements to minimize real losses in the system. Potential impact on both real and apparent losses, relative cost, and priority for the City to implement the actions are summarized below. Our hope is that this information will provide a better understanding of the water system loss control in the Salt Lake City culinary water distribution system. If you have questions about the information in this document, or if you just want to know more, please drop us a note at stephanie.duer@slcgov. com. 1545 E 14075 S 801.495.2224 Draper UT, 84020 wwww.bowencollins.com Water and Loss Control Audit THE WATER AND LOSS CONTROL AUDIT IS A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF HOW WATER IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN SALT LAKE CITY’S CULINARY WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. S A L T L A K E C I T Y ’ S W A T E R : TOTAL SYSTEM INPUT:83,813 AC-FT TOTAL WATER USAGE ACCOUNTED FOR: 75,731 AC-FT TOTAL WATER UNACCOUNTED FOR: 8,082 AC-FT WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?AND WHERE DOES IT GO? As part of the City’s overall conservation efforts, understanding how water is accounted for is a priority. An audit was completed using methodology established in Manual M36 – Water Audits and Loss Control Programs from the American Water Works Association (AWWA). Completing this audit will help the City understand the performance of their water system and what inefficiencies may be present. The audit also helps estimate the revenue impacts of identified system losses and develops recommended actions to reduce losses. Treatment Plants (City Creek, Parleys, Big Cottonwood)Unbilled Unmetered Consumption (UUAC) Wells Water Unaccounted For Water Exported Tunnels and Springs Unbilled Metered Consumption (UMAC) MWDSLS Wholesale Purchases MWDSLS Wholesale Purchases 37,344 AC-FT Billed Accounts 69,134 AC-FT Unbilled Accounts 800 AC-FT Water Used for Maintenance 2,500 AC-FT Water Unaccounted For 8,082 AC-FT Water Exported to Holliday Water & Others 3,116 AC-FT Treatment Plants 39,422 AC-FT 16 Wells 4,362 AC-FT Tunnels & Springs 2,684 AC-FT Billed Metered Consumption (BMAC) WATER UNACCOUNTED FOR IS EQUAL TO THE VOLUME USED BY 14,100 RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLDS 2023 DATA SET Billed Unmetered Consumption (BUAC)(0) Meter & Data Handling Losses Other Losses Non-Revenue Water HOW DO SALT LAKE CITY SYSTEM LOSSES COMPARE TO OTHER SYSTEMS? Performance Indicator When compared to available AWWA data, SLC is about at the 75th percentile for system loss. This would suggest that SLC is performing poorly. However, it should be clarified that this percentile is based on an AWWA data set consisting of only entities with a Level 1 validated water audit. As a result, the data being used for comparison is coming from entities that have had several years to minimize water loss and work on developing high quality data. Many of these utilities provide indoor water only and consequently have much smaller systems (per capita) than SLC. For comparison, a target goal for system losses of 8 percent (a good initial goal for utilities beginning to work on reducing system loss) has been added to the data comparison graphic. As can be seen, this target ends up around the 60th percentile, verifying the aggressive nature of the AWWA dataset. Unit Total Losses:Unit Apparent Losses:Unit Other Losses:81.4 gal/conn/day 25.3 gal/conn/day 56.1 gal/conn/day 90th %ile 90th %ile 90th %ile10th %ile 10th %ile 10th %ile 75 th % i l e 75 th % i l e 75 th % i l e Med i a n Med i a n Med i a n 25th %il e 25th %ile 25th %ile Result is above 90th %ile SLC Goal Current SLC Losses SLC Goal & Current Losses SLC G o a l Current SLC Losses HOW VALID IS SALT LAKE CITY’S DATA? Data Validity Score: 64 See Loss Control Planning for Tier Details Tier I (≤25) Tier II (26-50)Tier III (51-70) Tier IV (71-90) Tier V (91-100) Data Validity Tier: Tier III (51-70) Data ValidityWhat does that mean? Once data was gathered and input into the AWWA software, a data scoring matrix was completed to give SLC a sense of this audit’s data validity. Data gradings are user-selected ratings of the validity—or trustworthiness—of the individual volumetric and system data inputs. SLC’s data validity score (DVS) was calculated to be 65/100, thus landing in Tier III, an intermediate level of data validity. At this level, AWWA indicates that the data is sufficiently trustworthy that an entity may begin to launch loss control interventions in specific areas, use performance indicators to track its ongoing loss control performance, and compare its data with other water utilities. Despite this moderate data validity score, there are still some reservations about the City’s data. Most of these reservations center on the City’s metering data. During the audit process there was some difficulty pulling consistent data from the City’s system. On several occasions, it was discovered that the data included multiple duplicate records or was missing records provided as part of previous requests. The database is also missing clear identifiers of certain important types of water use. Improving the documentation of records will allow the City to have more confidence in the remainder of the conclusions contained here. WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL VALUE OF UNACCOUNTED FOR WATER IN SALT LAKE CITY? Total Volume of NRW = 11,357 ACRE-FT/YR Total COST OF NRW = $8,607,563/YR Meter & Data Handling Losses Basis of Valuation* Volume AC-FT/YR Value $/YR Other Losses Non-Revenue Water U N A C C O U N T E D F O R W A T E R C O M P O N E N T S S U M M A R Y UNACCOUNTED FOR WATER IN SALT LAKE CITY HAS A VALUE OF ABOUT $8.6 MILLION. ALTHOUGH ONLY A PORTION OF THIS REPRESENTS REAL WATER THAT CAN BE RECOVERED, THIS IS STILL A SUBSTANTIAL ASSET THAT SHOULD BE BETTER UNDERSTOOD. 2,509 $2,699,730 8,873 $5,907,832 11,382 $8,607,562 CRUC VPC Blended U N A C C O U N T E D F O R W A T E R *Based on Customer Retail Unit Charge (CRUC) or Variable Production Cost (VPC) per AWWA M36 methodology. Unknown Losses Including System Leaks 5,573 AC-FT Systematic Data Handling Errors 173 AC-FT Water Theft 173 AC-FT Metering Inaccuracies 2,163 AC-FT Vo l u m e ( A C - F T / Y R ) Co s t ( D o l l a r s ) 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000 $9,000,000 $10,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 Real Losses Unauthorized Consumption Systematic Data Handling Errors Unbilled Metered Authorized Cons. Customer Metering Inaccuracies NRW Components Summary Unbilled Unmetered Auth. Cons. 1 The number of stars (“ *”) indicate the relative potential impact the recommendation could have on reducing losses in the SLCDPU system. The more stars, the greater the potential impact. WHAT CAN SALT LAKE CITY DO TO REDUCE WATER LOSSES? A number of potential actions have been identified to make improvement relative to the system audit. This includes potential actions in three separate categories: gathering improved data to provide better understanding of system losses, improving processes to increase confidence in the validity of the collected data, and making physical improvements to minimize real losses in the system. Potential impact on both real and apparent losses, relative cost, and priority for the City to implement the actions are summarized below. Our hope is that this information will provide a better understanding of the water system loss control in the Salt Lake City culinary water distribution system. If you have questions about the information in this document, or if you just want to know more, please drop us a note at stephanie.duer@slcgov.com. 1545 E 14075 S 801.495.2224 Draper UT, 84020 www.bowencollins.com Water and Loss Control Audit THE WATER AND LOSS CONTROL AUDIT IS A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF HOW WATER IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN SALT LAKE CITY’S CULINARY WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. S A L T L A K E C I T Y ’ S W A T E R : TOTAL SYSTEM INPUT:89,939 AC-FT TOTAL WATER USAGE ACCOUNTED FOR: 81,517 AC-FT TOTAL WATER UNACCOUNTED FOR: 8,423 AC-FT WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?AND WHERE DOES IT GO? As part of the City’s overall conservation efforts, understanding how water is accounted for is a priority. An audit was completed using methodology established in Manual M36 – Water Audits and Loss Control Programs from the American Water Works Association (AWWA). Completing this audit will help the City understand the performance of their water system and what inefficiencies may be present. The audit also helps estimate the revenue impacts of identified system losses and develops recommended actions to reduce losses. Treatment Plants (City Creek, Parleys, Big Cottonwood) Wells Tunnels and Springs MWDSLS Wholesale Purchases MWDSLS Wholesale Purchases 50,803 AC-FT Treatment Plants 33,525 AC-FT 16 Wells 3,322 AC-FT Tunnels & Springs 2,290 AC-FT WATER UNACCOUNTED FOR IS EQUAL TO THE VOLUME USED BY 14,600 RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLDS 2024 DATA SET Unbilled Unmetered Consumption (UUAC) Water Unaccounted For Water Exported Unbilled Metered Consumption (UMAC) Billed Accounts 75,251 AC-FT Unbilled Accounts 650 AC-FT Water Used for Maintenance 2,000 AC-FT Water Unaccounted For 8,423 AC-FT Water Exported to Holliday Water & Others 3,417 AC-FT Billed Metered Consumption (BMAC) Billed Unmetered Consumption (BUAC)(0) Meter & Data Handling Losses Other Losses Non-Revenue Water HOW DO SALT LAKE CITY SYSTEM LOSSES COMPARE TO OTHER SYSTEMS? Performance Indicator When compared to available AWWA data, SLC is about at the 75th percentile for system loss. This would suggest that SLC is performing poorly. However, it should be clarified that this percentile is based on an AWWA data set consisting of only entities with a Level 1 validated water audit. As a result, the data being used for comparison is coming from entities that have had several years to minimize water loss and work on developing high quality data. Many of these utilities provide indoor water only and consequently have much smaller systems (per capita) than SLC. For comparison, a target goal for system losses of 8 percent (a good initial goal for utilities beginning to work on reducing system loss) has been added to the data comparison graphic. As can be seen, this target ends up around the 60th percentile, verifying the aggressive nature of the AWWA dataset. 90th %ile 90th %ile10th %ile 10th %ile Unit Total Losses:Unit Apparent Losses:Unit Other Losses: 75 th % i l e 75 th %il e Med i a n 25th %il e 25th %ile 87.7 gal/conn/day 28.4 gal/conn/day 59.4 gal/conn/day Result is above 90th %ile SL C G o a l Current SLC Losses SLC Goal & Current Losses Med i a n 90th %ile10th %ile 75 th % i l e Med i a n 25th %ile SLC G o a l Current SLC Losses HOW VALID IS SALT LAKE CITY’S DATA? Data Validity Score: 66 See Loss Control Planning for Tier Details Tier I (≤25) Tier II (26-50)Tier III (51-70) Tier IV (71-90) Tier V (91-100) Data Validity Tier: Tier III (51-70) Data ValidityWhat does that mean? Once data was gathered and input into the AWWA software, a data scoring matrix was completed to give SLC a sense of this audit’s data validity. Data gradings are user-selected ratings of the validity—or trustworthiness—of the individual volumetric and system data inputs. SLC’s data validity score (DVS) was calculated to be 65/100, thus landing in Tier III, an intermediate level of data validity. At this level, AWWA indicates that the data is sufficiently trustworthy that an entity may begin to launch loss control interventions in specific areas, use performance indicators to track its ongoing loss control performance, and compare its data with other water utilities. Despite this moderate data validity score, there are still some reservations about the City’s data. Most of these reservations center on the City’s metering data. During the audit process there was some difficulty pulling consistent data from the City’s system. On several occasions, it was discovered that the data included multiple duplicate records or was missing records provided as part of previous requests. The database is also missing clear identifiers of certain important types of water use. Improving the documentation of records will allow the City to have more confidence in the remainder of the conclusions contained here. WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL VALUE OF UNACCOUNTED FOR WATER IN SALT LAKE CITY? Real Losses Unauthorized Consumption Systematic Data Handling Errors Meter & Data Handling Losses Basis of Valuation* Volume AC-FT/YR Value $/YR Other Losses Non-Revenue Water Unbilled Unmetered Auth. Cons. Unbilled Metered Authorized Cons. Customer Metering Inaccuracies Unknown Losses Including System Leaks 5,699 AC-FT Systematic Data Handling Errors 188 AC-FT Water Theft 188 AC-FT Metering Inaccuracies 2,347 AC-FT U N A C C O U N T E D F O R W A T E R C O M P O N E N T S S U M M A R Y UNACCOUNTED FOR WATER IN SALT LAKE CITY HAS A VALUE OF ABOUT $9 MILLION. ALTHOUGH ONLY A PORTION OF THIS REPRESENTS REAL WATER THAT CAN BE RECOVERED, THIS IS STILL A SUBSTANTIAL ASSET THAT SHOULD BE BETTER UNDERSTOOD. 2,724 $3,511,795 8,349 $5,836,479 11,073 $9,348,274 CRUC VPCBlended U N A C C O U N T E D F O R W A T E R *Based on Customer Retail Unit Charge (CRUC) or Variable Production Cost (VPC) per AWWA M36 methodology. Total Volume of NRW = 11,052 ACRE-FT/YR Total COST OF NRW = $9,348,274/YR Vo l u m e ( A c r e - F T / Y R ) Co s t ( D o l l a r s ) 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000 $9,000,000 $10,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 NRW Components Summary 1 The number of stars (“ *”) indicate the relative potential impact the recommendation could have on reducing losses in the SLCDPU system. The more stars, the greater the potential impact. WHAT CAN SALT LAKE CITY DO TO REDUCE WATER LOSSES? A number of potential actions have been identified to make improvement relative to the system audit. This includes potential actions in three separate categories: gathering improved data to provide better understanding of system losses, improving processes to increase confidence in the validity of the collected data, and making physical improvements to minimize real losses in the system. Potential impact on both real and apparent losses, relative cost, and priority for the City to implement the actions are summarized below. Our hope is that this information will provide a better understanding of the water system loss control in the Salt Lake City culinary water distribution system. If you have questions about the information in this document, or if you just want to know more, please drop us a note at stephanie.duer@slcgov.com. 1545 E 14075 S 801.495.2224 Draper UT, 84020 www.bowencollins.com SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-23 APPENDICES M. SLCDPU D ROUGHT C ONTINGENCY P LAN SUMMARY plan summary drought & water shortage contingency plan Understanding the potential impact of drought on the Salt Lake City water supply and establishing a plan to meet customer needs during periods of drought and water shortage. The Wasatch Front has experienced several drought periods over the past 100 years with typical drought periods extending between 3-5 years. In more recent decades, the frequency and intensity of drought has increased with 2021 being an Exceptional Drought year (highest category of drought conditions) for the area according to the National Integrated Drought Information System. Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) recognizes that it has become increasingly important to protect current water sources, plan for future water supply during periods of drought and other water shortage, and improve water reliability. Water shortage may result from a variety of circumstances such as climate change, regular climate variability, water supply contamination, system disruption or interruption, and even unanticipated surges in demand. This Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Plan is intended as a guide for monitoring, measuring, mitigating, and responding to water supply shortages or disruptions as a result of any of these or other scenarios. DROUGHT AND WATER SHORTAGE PLAN COMPONENTS This drought and water shortage plan consists of four major components. WATER SHORTAGE MONITORING & STAGES Monitoring is needed to detect early warning signs of water shortage and includes indicators such as precipitation defecits, high temperatures, water storage reductions, and low runoff flows. WATER SHORTAGE RESPONSE Water storage triggers and stages are developed to identify when projected supplies reach levels where response actions are needed. PUBLIC OUTREACH Response actions are near immediate behaviors triggered by defined water shortage stages with the goal of effecting quick water use reductions. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT & MITIGATION To make the City’s supply as reliable as possible, vulnerabilities were assessed and mitigation actions were developed to minimize the potential for impact of each water supply vulnerability. Table 1: Water Shortage Triggers Stage Projected Available Supply as a Percent of Demand Projected Available Stream Flow Yield as a Percent of Historical Average Stage 1 - Watch >100 but NIDIS indicates Drought 87 - 100% Stage 2 - Mild 94 - 100%<87% Stage 3 - Moderate 86 - 94%- Stage 4 - Severe 76 - 86%- Stage 5 - Critical <76%- water shortage MONITORING & STAGES WATER SHORTAGE MONITORING & SUPPLY VULNERABILITY The purpose of water shortage monitoring is to assess and determine projected surface and ground water supply, available storage water volumes, and current and projected water demand in order to predict times of water shortage and initiate response efforts when necessary. It should be emphasized that SLCDPU staff have been tracking and evaluating drought and water shortage for many years. SLCDPU has a number of supplies that contribute to its overall water portfolio and that are included in the City’s water shortage monitoring process. These supplies are shown in Figure 1 along with a typical year’s production. While we may think water supply shortages only relate to drought, each of the supplies shown in Figure 1 is vulnerable to water shortages caused by climate change, water supply contamination, system disruption or interruption, etc. Because of these vulnerabilities, it is important that each supply is continually monitored and measured to ensure that the City’s demands can be met. If a water shortage is determined, then demand reduction efforts will be needed. Figure 1: Typical Year Supply Figure 2: Water Shortage Stages WATER SHORTAGE TRIGGERS & STAGES Water shortage monitoring results can be used to establish and implement water shortage triggers and stages. SLCDPU’s water shortage stages are primarily defined based on projected available supply as a percent of demand. These stages are summarized in Figure 2 and Table 1. As shown in Table 1, a secondary criterion has been included for when stream flows are below average. This criterion is needed for dry years in which storage or other source water may be available to meet demands but management of demand is prudent to prepare for potential extended drought. Stage 5 ‐Critical Stage 4 ‐Severe Stage 3 ‐Moderate Stage 2 ‐Mild Stage 1 ‐Watch 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Pe r c e n t a g e of Av a i l a b l e Su p p l y to De m a n d water shortage RESPONSE PLAN The City has identified actions at each level needed to achieve reductions in demand that will ensure water is available for users in times of shortage. The recommended actions for each water shortage level for outdoor and indoor water use are summarized below. Water Shortage Stages Daily Reduction Goal Water Shortage Response Summary: Outdoors Water Shortage Response Summary: Indoors Single Family Homes Commercial, Industrial, Other Institutional, Business, Multi-Family, & HOAs Parks, Golf, Schools, & other Government Facilities Single Family Homes (per household) Commercial, Industrial, Other Institutional, Business, Multi-Family, & HOAs (percentage across all customers) Parks, Golf, Schools, & other Government Facilities (percentage across all customers) Stage 1 – Watch Avoid Entering Mild Stage • Avoid wasting water • Avoid wasting water • Adhere to best practices • Avoid wasting water • Avoid wasting water • Reduce indoor use by 5% Stage 2 – Mild 10 mgd • Water lawn less often • Water lawn less often • Adhere to best practices • Required to adhere to budget • No lawn watering between 8 AM & 8 PM • Voluntary reduce average gallons per house hold by 3 gallons per day (2%) • Voluntary reduce indoor use by 5% • Reduce indoor use by 10% Stage 3 – Moderate 25 mgd • Water no more than two times per week • No lawn watering between 8 AM and 8 PM • Mandatory: Adherence to water budget for irrigation-only meters • Water no more than two times per week • No lawn watering between 8 AM and 8 PM • Mandatory: Adherence to water budget for irrigation-only meters • Adhere to best practices • No lawn watering between 8 AM and 8 PM • Mandatory: Reduce outdoor water use by 15% • Reduce average gallons per house hold by 8 gallons per day (5%) • Reduce indoor use by 10% • Reduce indoor use by 14% Stage 4 – Severe 40 mgd • Water no more than one time per week • No lawn watering between 8 AM and 8 PM • Mandatory: 25% reduction of water budget • Water no more than one time per week • No lawn watering between 8 AM and 8 PM • Mandatory: 25% reduction of water budget • Adhere to best practices • No lawn watering between 8 AM and 8 PM • Mandatory: Reduce outdoor water use by 25% • Reduce average gallons per house hold by 11 gallons per day (7.5%) • Reduce indoor use by 16% • Reduce indoor use by 21% Stage 5 – Critical 65 mgd • Lawn watering prohibited • No new landscapes • No filling pools, jacuzzies, or hot tubs, etc. • Lawn watering prohibited • No new landscapes • Reduce consumption by at least 35% • Lawn watering not allowed without permit • No new landscapes • Reduce average gallons per house hold by 15 gallons per day (10%) • Reduce indoor use by 21% • Reduce indoor use by 28% Should greater reduction be necessary within a stage, more actions may be required than indicated. For specific guidelines to achieve necessary reductions visit slc.gov/utilities/conservation Vulnerability definitions and impacts associated with each were assessed along with consideration of issues such as probability of occurrence, magnitude of effect on water supply, cost of consequence, and potential mitigations. . MITIGATION ACTIONS: Mitigation actions will become the foundation of the City’s plan to prepare for and respond to future water shortages For each vulnerability included in the categories discussed above, one or more mitigation actions were identified that may be used by SLCDPU to help protect its service area against water shortage. Mitigation activities the City is pursuing to minimize water shortage vulnerabilities are summarized on the City’s conservation website at www.slcgov.com/conservation. Below are a few examples of City Projects that have been completed to help protect against water supply vulnerabilities. PLAN EXECUTION VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT & MITIGATION Beyond defining water shortage responses, this plan has also proactively looked for ways to reduce the City’s vulnerability to drought and other water shortages. PUBLIC OUTREACH Notifying and educating SLC water users is critical to the success of this Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Plan. To do this efficiently and effectively, SLC will email customers and send out flyers in the mail requesting voluntary water reduction. Additionally, SLC will request reductions via social media, on their website, and various other digital platforms. WATERSHED PROTECTION GREATER AVENUES WATER CONSERVATION DEMONSTRATION GARDEN Executing the plan will be under the direction of the SLCDPU Director and will occur in three basic steps: WATER SHORTAGE MONITORING STAGE IDENTIFICATION & DECLARATION In order to protect the City’s water supply, the Director will lead efforts to notify the community of the water shortage stage and inform them of ways that they can conserve water and contribute to the success of this plan. The Director uses drought monitoring tools and water supply data to determine if the City is experiencing a water shortage. Once a water shortage is determined, the Director and Mayor will identify and declare which water shortage stage the City is experiencing and required response actions. COMMUNICATION & OUTREACH 1 2 3 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT: Several potential water supply vulnerabilities were identified and assembled into the following five categories: • Surface Water Vulnerabilities • Well Water Vulnerabilities • Transmission Vulnerabilities • Increased Water Demand Vulnerabilities • Drought Consequences SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-24 APPENDICES N. I MPACTS OF W ATER C ONSERVATION ON R ATES T ECHNICAL M EMORANDUM , 2025 Below are excerpts from the technical memo: Introduction The 2025 update to the water conservation plan for Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU or the Utility), in combination with recent consumer water rate increases, has created interest in the relationship between water conservation and cons umer water rates. SLCDPU asked Bowen Collins & Associates (BC&A) to complete an analysis to understand this relationship and document our findings in this technical memo. The purpose of this analysis and technical memo is to understand the economic impacts of water conservation on water service and consumer water rates. Methodology Conservation can result in both upward and downward pressure on water rates: • Upward Pressure on Rates – A common complaint about conservation from rate payers is often voiced in this way, “The problem I have with conservation is that, if I am successful in reducing my water use, it results in less revenue for the utility. To make up for lost revenue, the utility then raises my rates. I feel like I am being punished for doing a good job at conserving.” There is some truth to this complaint. Every utility has significant costs that are fixed, regardless of water treated and delivered. Beyond normal utility fixed costs, operating a conservation program within a utility introduces additional fixed costs to the system. When conservation results in less water deliveries, these costs must still be paid for. This means that the average unit cost of water ($/gallon) must increase to account for the lower sales. However, this is only half the picture. • Downward Pressure on Rates – Often less obvious but equally important is the downward pressure conservation has on rates. While some of the Utility’s costs are fixed, other costs increase in proportion to demands in the system. Especially in areas such as Salt Lake City where water resources are scarce, water costs can increase significantly as demands increase. This includes increases in water supply and infrastructure costs. Thus, the challenge of this study becomes to define the magnitude of each of these factors and understand which has a greater impact on rates overall: • Calculating upward pressure on rates can be done relatively easily. Historical annual costs can be adjusted by inflation and then divided by total water sales and/or total ERUs. The resulting unit costs can then be compared from year to year to understand how conservation has increased costs. • Calculating downward pressure on rates is more difficult. This is because it requires calculating avoided costs which (by definition) can’t be directly measured. However, the City does have several tools that can provide a reasonable estimate of these costs including its existing water system model and an understanding of alternative water costs. Once avoided costs are calculated, they can be added to observed costs and then divided by projected sales without conservation to calculate unit costs without conservation. These costs can then be compared to unit costs with conservation to understand the overall impact of conservation on rates. For this study, water rate impacts will be calculated for observed conservation from 2000 to 2024 and project conservation moving forward based on the Utility’s conservation goals. The details of these calculations are summarized in the following sections. Conclusions The analysis described in the technical memo has allowed us to estimate the economic impact of water conservation on water services and consumer water rates. Below is a summary of our conclusions: • Conservation saves the Utility (and therefore customers) money over time by reducing the cost to supply, store, and convey water to consumers. • It is estimated that, between 2000 and 2025, conservation resulted in $468 million in savings to SLCDPU, and that the cumulative savings between 2026 and 2060 will be approximately $1.29 billion. • For a typical residential household in 2025, these cost savings result in an average monthly bill that is approximately $34/month less than it would be without conservation. SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-25 APPENDICES O. W ATER C ONSERVATION P ROGRAM M ANAGER J OB D ESCRIPTION 12:20 PM 07/17/2025 Page 1 of 5 Overview Overview Inactive No View As Of 07/17/2025 Date of Last Change 02/15/2024 07:20:04.091 PM Job Profile Name Water Conservation Program Manager Job Code 002784 Include Job Code in Name No Job Profile Summary Reporting to the Water Resource Manager, incumbent plans, develops, organizes, coordinates and executes department water conservation programs and activities. Regularly interfaces with outside agencies, media, and consultants. Provides technical expertise and assistance in landscaping, irrigation, residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional water use and other approaches to cultivate and foster water conservation. Develops and coordinates dissemination of public education information and materials. Regularly represents the Department at public meetings, technical conferences, and at local, State, and regional stakeholder workshops, panels, etc. TYPICAL DUTIES: Working with department leadership, plans and implements the department’s water conservation program. Monitors water- use records and evaluates program effectiveness. Collects, analyzes, interprets and presents information on water conservation activities to department management, local community leaders, elected officials, special interest groups and customers. Recommends program direction responsive to landscape, horticulture, commercial and industrial needs. • Researches and reports up-to-date information regarding current legislation and/or ordinances related to water conservation issues. Organizes and coordinates a volunteer docent program, workshops, promotional activities, educational tours, and field days to teach and encourage appropriate water conservation methods. Coordinates development of interpretive signs and printed informational materials to reflect proper gardening, landscape and conservation program objectives. Attends and/or participates in meetings and represents the department on water conservation issues. Acts as coordinator to and advisor for citizen advisory committees on special projects pertaining to water conservation issues and program initiatives. • Develops educational and informational brochures, articles, and other media. Provides input for water conservation web site and assists in page maintenance. Coordinates activities with other city departments in providing public information programs, including presentations covering general conservation, residential and commercial programs to schools, civics and other groups. Works with other city departments in developing and implementing water conservation best practices. • Drafts correspondence on behalf of the Department regarding water-conservation-related inquiries and policies. Attends, participates, or conducts meetings representing the Department to the public on a variety of issues. Conducts research to provide information essential for staff decision making on critical issues and existing programs. Assists in the preparation of the Department annual report. Assists in the development of materials for the Department web page and assists in page maintenance. • Reviews interim and final reports for water conservation projects submitted by outside agencies and makes recommendations. Oversees development and administration of a certification program for commercial and industrial • Job Description 12:20 PM 07/17/2025 Page 2 of 5 customers in conjunction with specialists in the community. Assists in development and implementation of model water conservation ordinances. Works with outside agencies and City planning departments in providing training and support for staff, contractors and residents. Assists in research, testing and reporting of new water conservation technologies and joint projects with other agencies and universities. Monitors and advises on landscape conservation research, including research on water conserving plants. Interfaces with others in commercial, industrial, institutional and residential water conservation projects. Participates in pre and post field verifications of landscape water conservation projects. Provides technical review and assistance in landscape water conservation project design and development, and in particular the use of advanced irrigation technology and incentive programs. Reviews irrigation design documents, specifications and ordinances. • Hires, trains, and supervises seasonal, intern or other conservation program staff as needed. Conducts internal training programs to enhance customer service related to water conservation. • Assists in the preparation of annual budget and updates to the department’s conservation plan.• Performs other duties as assigned.• MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Bachelor’s degree from an accredited university in landscape architecture, horticulture, plant or water sciences, environmental planning, education, public relations or related field. Four years’ job-related, paid experience, including two years in public relations type work. • Advanced knowledge of horticulture principles, plant identification, irrigation design, and water-conserving landscaping practices. Also, considerable knowledge of basic conservation methods and techniques, including related engineering, mathematical and economic analytical methods. • Ability to apply common sense, analyze data and interpret results yielding varying outcomes. Ability to communicate and interact effectively with the public, and with employees and representatives of both inside and outside agencies. Ability to operate basic office machines such as computers, copiers, adding machines, printers, phones, and fax. • Demonstrated ability to exercise independent judgment and make sound, logical, well thought out decisions.• Possession of a valid driver’s license or driving privilege card.• Must be able to obtain within 6 months of hire the Irrigation Landscape Auditor certification as administered by the International Irrigation Association. • WORKING CONDITIONS: Work is generally performed in a comfortable office environment. Frequent sitting, walking, standing, stooping and lifting of light to moderately heavy weights. Frequent driving and setting up education materials for informational meetings. Occasional minor climbing. Exposure to outdoor elements, cold, heat, dust and noise. Occasional exposure to hazards associated with construction areas, toxic or caustic chemicals, fumes or airborne particles. May be required to wear a respirator and may occasionally be exposed to wet or humid conditions. • Irregular and extended work hours required to prepare for and attend committee and public information meetings, including • SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-26 APPENDICES P. C ONSERVATION A CTION P LANS SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-27 APPENDICES Q. R ESIDENTIAL W ATER S ALES T ARGETS Note: The following tables are included to provide approximate targets to better inform customers conservation efforts. These values are based on the data available at the time of the conservation plan update, and may change as better or more accurate data becomes available, water use patterns change, residential population patterns in the SLCDPU service area change, and as other factors change over time. Combined Residential Water Targets Current (2024) 5-year goal (2030) 10-year goal (2035) 15-year goal (2040) Long-term (2060) Total Per Household Sales (gal/household) 171 169 166 164 158 Indoor Household (gal/household) 64 64 62 62 59 Outdoor Household (gal/household) 107 105 103 102 98 Per Capita Production (gpcd) 109 108 104 101 96 Total Per Person Sales (gpcd) 89 88 86 85 82 Indoor (gpcd) 54 53 52 52 49 Outdoor (gpcd) 35 34 34 33 32 Single Family Residential Water Targets Current (2024) 5-year goal (2030) 10-year goal (2035) 15-year goal (2040) Long-term (2060) Total Per Household Sales (gal/household) 389 384 377 376 359 Indoor Household (gal/household) 138 136 134 133 127 Outdoor Household (gal/household) 251 248 244 243 232 Per Capita Production (gpcd) 187 185 178 173 164 Total Per Person Sales (gpcd) 151 150 147 145 140 Indoor (gpcd) 54 53 52 52 49 Outdoor (gpcd) 98 97 95 95 90 SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DRAFT Page A-28 APPENDICES Duplex Water Targets Current (2024) 5-year goal (2030) 10-year goal (2035) 15-year goal (2040) Long-term (2060) Total Per Household Sales (gal/household) 191 189 185 183 176 Indoor Household (gal/household) 104 103 101 100 96 Outdoor Household (gal/household) 87 86 84 83 81 Per Capita Production (gpcd) 122 121 116 113 107 Total Per Person Sales (gpcd) 99 98 96 95 91 Indoor (gpcd) 54 53 52 52 49 Outdoor (gpcd) 45 44 43 43 42 Triplex Water Targets Current (2024) 5-year goal (2030) 10-year goal (2035) 15-year goal (2040) Long-term (2060) Total Per Household Sales (gal/household) 144 143 140 139 133 Indoor Household (gal/household) 97 96 94 93 89 Outdoor Household (gal/household) 47 47 46 45 44 Per Capita Production (gpcd) 99 98 94 92 87 Total Per Person Sales (gpcd) 80 79 78 77 74 Indoor (gpcd) 54 53 52 52 49 Outdoor (gpcd) 26 26 25 25 25 Four-Plex Water Targets Current (2024) 5-year goal (2030) 10-year goal (2035) 15-year goal (2040) Long-term (2060) Total Per Household Sales (gal/household) 151 149 146 145 139 Indoor Household (gal/household) 103 102 100 99 94 Outdoor Household (gal/household) 48 47 46 46 45 Per Capita Production (gpcd) 98 96 93 90 86 Total Per Person Sales (gpcd) 79 78 77 76 73 Indoor (gpcd) 54 53 52 52 49 Outdoor (gpcd) 25 25 24 24 24 SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 DRAFT Page A-29 APPENDICES R. L INKS AND R EFERENCES Alliance for Water Efficiency. Landscape Transformation: Assessment of Water Utility Programs and Market Readiness Evaluation. Chicago, Alliance for Water Efficiency. 2019 Alliance for Water Efficiency. Landscape Transformation Study2018 Analytics Report: Chicago, Alliance for Water Efficiency. 2018 Alliance for Water Efficiency. State-Level Water Loss Laws in the United States. Chicago, Alliance for Water Efficiency. 2019 Alliance for Water Efficiency. Sustainable Landscapes: A Utility Program Guide. Chicago, Alliance for Water Efficiency. 2019 Alliance for Water Efficiency. The Water Efficiency and Conservation State Scorecard: An Assessment of Laws. Chicago, Alliance for Water Efficiency. 2017. American Water Works Association. Evaluating Urban Water Conservation Programs: A Procedures Manual. American Water Works Association. 1993. American Water Works Association. M1 Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges. Sixth Addition. Denver, American Water Works Association. 2012 American Water Works Association. M36 Water Audits and Loss Control Programs. Third Addition. Denver, American Water Works Association. 2009. American Water Works Association. M52 Water Conservation Programs: A Planning Manual. Second Addition. Denver, American Water Works Association. 2017. American Water Works Association. Water Conservation-Oriented Rates: Strategies to Extend Supply, Promote Equity, and Meet Minimum Flow Levels. Denver, American Water Works Association. 2005. American Water Works Association Research Foundation. Effectiveness of Residential Water Conservation Price and Nonprice Programs . Denver, AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association. 1998. American Water Works Association Research Foundation. Impacts of Demand Reduction on Water Utilities. Denver, American research Foundation and American Water Works Association. 1996. American Water Works Association Research Foundation. Public Involvement Impact Strategies: A Manager’s Handbook. Denver, AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association. 1995. American Water Works Association Research Foundation. Residential End Uses of Water. Denver, AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association. 1999. Beecher, Janice A., Thomas Chesnutt, David Pekelney. Socioeconomic Impacts of Water Conservation. AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association. 2001. DeOreo, William, Peter Mayer, Benedykt Dziegielewski, Jack Kiefer. Residential End Uses of Water. Water Research Foundation. Denver, Co. 2016. Recommended State Water Strategy. Salt Lake City, Governor’s Water Strategy Advisory Team. 2017. Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. Salt Lake City Secondary Water Irrigation Master Plan. Bowen Collins & Associates, Inc. 2019. Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. Salt Lake City Storage and Conveyance Plan. Bowen Collins & Associates, Inc. 2020. Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (2019). Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan. Bowen Collins & Associates, Inc. 2019. Salt Lake City Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Plan www.slc.gov/utilities/conservation/droughtplan State of Utah. Regional Water Conservation Goal Report. Hansen Allen & Luce, Bowen Collins & Associates, Inc. 2019. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Conservation Plan Guidelines. USEPA-832-D-98-001. Washington, D.C. 1998 US Environmental Protection Agency. Resilient Strategies Guide for Water Utilities. 2019. Utah Code73-10-31: Water Conservation Plan Required https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title73/Chapter10/73-10-S32.html Vickers, Amy. Handbook of Water Use and Conservation. Amherst, Waterplow Press. 2001. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 DRAFT Page A-30 APPENDICES S. G LOSSARY OF T ERMS , A BBREVIATIONS , AND A CRONYMS Acre Feet (af): A measurement to describe a volume of water; One acre-foot is the amount of water which would cover one acre of land to a depth of one foot; 325,851 gallons. Action Plan: A more detailed, analytical course of action to implement programs, initiatives, or measures outlined in the Master Plan to achieve specific objectives, typically including information relating to time-lines for implementation, evaluative measures, and costs relating to staffing and/or materials; a component of the Annual Report. Annual Report: This report will provide an evaluative update on existing programs, as well as outlining new conservation initiatives for the coming year, providing initiative timelines, estimated costs, participating groups, and responsible parties. ASR: Aquifer Storage and Recovery BCWTP Big Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant Best Management Practice (BMP): For the purposes of Salt Lake City, a BMP is defined as a policy, program, practice, rule, regulation, or ordinance, or the use of devices, equipment, or facilities that meets either of the following criteria: • An established and generally accepted practice among water suppliers that results in the more efficient use of water; or • A practice for which sufficient data are available to indicate that significant conservation or conservation related benefits can be achieved; that the practice is technically and economically reasonable and not environmentally or socially unacceptable; and that the practice is not otherwise unreasonable for most water suppliers to carry out CAP: Water Conservation Action Plan; these are plans submitted by City Divisions and community stakeholders and reflect commitments of actions and goals towards achieving further water conservation. CCF: one hundred cubic feet; a unit of volume equivalent to 748 gallons of water and is the standard of measure used by the Department for billing purposes. CCWTP City Creek Water Treatment Plant Conservation: A set of strategies to solve the dilemma of providing water to people, both through supply and demand management; wise, efficient use of water by suppliers and customers. CUP: Central Utah Project CUWCD: Central Utah Water Conservancy District Demand Management: Methods to encourage customers to reduce water demand, whether through a change in behavior, the implementation of water- saving technologies, or through the reduction or elimination of waste. Evaluation: An overall determination of a conservation program or measure’s effectiveness in achieving an articulated objective. GPCD Gallons per capita per day; a unit of measure typically used to express the average number of gallons of water used by the average person each day in a water system. The calculation is made by dividing the total gallons of water used each day within a water system by the total number of people identified as residing within that water system. This calculation does not account for nor describe the industrial or commercial base within a community, nor does it account for individuals using water within the system, but not counted as residing within the system delivery area, such as commuters. Goals: General statements of purpose for a measure or program; goals should compliment and reinforce other community and Utility goals. Gray Water: wastewater generated in the household or at a place of work, excluding toilet wastes (black water), and including wastewater from bathroom sinks, baths, showers, laundry facilities, dishwashers, assuming there is no fecal material present. JVWTP via Jordan Aqueduct Jordan Valley Water Treatment Plant via Jordan Aqueduct LCWTP Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2025 DRAFT Page A-31 APPENDICES Major Conveyance Study: A study conducted by Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities to provide a report on existing and future supplies; major conveyances and storage facilities; and demand projections. Master Plan: A conceptual framework to show direction of intent. Measure: A device, incentive, or technology targeted at a particular type of end user or water use that, when implemented, will save water Metrics: a systematic method of measurement or comparison; in relationship to the Water conservation Master Plan, a method to assess program need and effectiveness mg Million gallons mgd Million gallons a day Monitoring: An ongoing process to assess results of an effort; steps in the process might include identifying what will be measured, what assumptions will be held, what estimates are agreed on, and what measuring tools will be used. Multi-family Residential: A planning term used to describe a building where two or more families live in separate units under one common roof; for example, duplexes, apartments houses, townhouses, and condominiums. Parleys WTP Parleys Water Treatment Plant POMWTP via POMA Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant via Point of the Mountain Aqueduct Practice: An action or system that is beneficial, empirically proven, cost- effective, and widely accepted in the professional community. Program: A set of conservation practices and measures planned to be implemented together and intended to support water conservation efforts. Project: Systemized efforts to achieve an objective. Projected savings: An estimate of the amount of water which will be conserved because suppliers and/or customers are implementing certain practices. Public Utilities: Refers to the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Retrofit: An umbrella term that refers to the modification of something; in the case of water conservation, retrofit refers to modifications to plumping fixtures or processes to increase efficiencies. Supply Management: Methods by which a utility maximizes the use of available untreated water. Sustainability: A decision-making concept describing development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. ULS: Utah Lake system Unaccounted-for water: A term used to describe the various ways water is difficult or impossible to measure due to such issues as the evaporation of water in canals and reservoirs, under-registering of water through aging meters, leaks, fire suppression, and hydrant flushing. Watershed: The major canyons of the Wasatch Mountain Range (the Wasatch Canyons), and their drainages that are a critical source of water for the communities served by the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. WCMP: Water Conservation Master Plan This page has intentionally been left blank STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst DATE:November 25, 2025 RE: Required Public Art Program Maintenance and Conservation Report for FY25-26 Maintenance and Conservation Artwork Projections ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE Each year, the Department of Community & Neighborhood’s Arts Council Division provides the City Council with a report estimating the maintenance and conservation costs for the City’s public art collection, including recommendations for the deaccession of certain art pieces. The Arts Council requests that the Council approve the transfer of funds to the CIP Percent-for-Art Maintenance Fund through the Finance Department the amount of 20% of the FY26 CIP Percent-for-Art funds ($33,475) be deposited into the Maintenance Fund. FY26 Maintenance and Conservation Projections During FY26, the Arts Council recommends that $33,475 or twenty percent of the total percent for art funding for FY26 be used to support the pieces of art as itemized in the transmittal. The remaining funds needed for the maintenance of nineteen artworks will come from prior year unused contingency funds in the amount of $53,450 as noted in Attachment B. Of this total, $10,000 will be set aside to address unexpected repairs that may arise during FY26 (based on historical data from previous fiscal years. FY25 Completed and In-Progress Repairs This year, the Arts Council focused on maintaining twenty-six art pieces for an estimated cost of $67,760. Of this amount, $25,900 came from the CIP Percent-for-Art Maintenance Fund with a contingency of $41,860 from the CIP Public Lands allocation. In addition to maintaining those art pieces identified as Priority 2 or 4 in the Inventory Assessment report, there were additional pieces requiring work. First was one of the Secret Dwellings sculptures at Cottonwood Park which was damaged by vandalism. This item is listed in “Unexpected Repairs” noted in Attachment A. Second was the restoration of three artworks at the International Peace Gardens including Dawn of a New Era: Peace, which was completed, as well as the Chinese Lions and the Japanese Lanterns which are still in progress. Finally, as the Council was made aware in July, the 200 West Cycle Track Planters were deaccessioned from the permanent collection list, although they will remain in in their current location as they serve as an important traffic calming function, as requested by Council Member Mano. 2 BUDGET CONCERNS FOR ONGOING MAINTENANCE NEEDS: As noted in previous reports from the Administration, all maintenance efforts will use the Condition & Inventory Assessment Report to prioritize work based on artwork needs, safety concerns, structural integrity, geographic equity, and prominence within the community and collection. Additionally, several two-dimensional works in the Fine Art Collection and housed in the City & County Building are in need of conservation are ineligible for maintenance through CIP funding. Further, several pieces were funded by the CRA but there are no maintenance funds for these pieces. According to the transmittal, the Arts Council may consider requesting a formal policy to designate CRA funding for the maintenance of these works. Currently some artworks funded by the CRA are being maintained with CIP maintenance funds. For reference, the following ordinance allows the transfer of funds and requests an annual report: ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS: 2.30.060: FUNDS FOR WORKS OF ART; REQUESTS FOR APPROPRIATIONS: A. When so designated by the City Council, in its appropriation for capital improvements, all City departments shall expend, as a nondeductible item out of any monies appropriated for the planning, design and construction of construction projects, an amount equal to one and one-half percent (1.5%) of such appropriations for the acquisition and installation of works of art and ornamentation, ten to twenty percent (10- 20%) of which will be deposited in the public art maintenance fund and used to provide maintenance for existing works of art. The Mayor shall provide a report to the City Council of works of art that require maintenance and the estimated cost of such maintenance prior to the funds being deposited in the public art maintenance fund. SLC Public Art Program FY25-26 Maintenance Projections •19 artworks •1 potential deaccession •$53,450 total anticipated repairs •$44,450 –Public Art CIP •$10,000 Maintenance Contingency –Public Art CIP SLC Public Art Program FY24-25 In-Progress Maintenance •11 artworks •1 partial deaccession •$67,760 total ongoing and partially completed repairs •$25,900 –Public Art CIP •$41,860 –Public Lands CIP •International Peace Gardens SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 10/08/2025 Date Sent to Council: 10/22/2025 From: Department * Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Cannon Alder, Laurel E-mail Laurel.CannonAlder@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 10/15/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 10/22/2025 Subject: Annual Public Art Maintenance Transmittal Additional Staff Contact: Felicia Baca, Renato Olmedo-Gonzalez Presenters/Staff Table This has always been a written briefing only, but we are happy to be there if that is useful. Document Type Information Item Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: This Transmittal is required by ordinance for the maintenance and conservation of artworks in the Salt Lake City Public Art Collection. 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 ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS TAMMY HUNSAKER Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145460, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5460 TEL 801.535.6230 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ____________________________ Date Received: ________________ Jill Remington Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ____________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2025 Chris Wharton, Chair FROM: Tammy Hunsaker, Director, Department of Community and Neighborhoods SUBJECT: Required Public Art Program Artwork Maintenance and Conservation Report for FY26 STAFF CONTACTS: Felicia Baca, Director, Arts Council felicia.baca@slc.gov | 385-256-5588 Renato Olmedo-González, Public Art Program Manager, Arts Council renato.olmedo-gonzalez@slc.gov | 801-535-6511 DOCUMENT TYPE: Informational RECOMMENDATION: n/a BUDGET IMPACT: None (already designated). This transmittal is required to transfer funds to Percent-for-Art/Maintenance Fund via Finance Department. COORDINATION: n/a ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS: 2.30.060: FUNDS FOR WORKS OF ART; REQUESTS FOR APPROPRIATIONS: A. When so designated by the City Council, in its appropriation for capital improvements, all City departments shall expend, as a nondeductible item out of any monies appropriated for the planning, design and construction of construction projects, an amount equal to one and one-half percent (1.5%) of such appropriations for the acquisition and installation of works of art and ornamentation, ten to twenty percent (10-20%) of which will be deposited in the public art maintenance fund and used to provide maintenance for existing works of art. The Mayor shall provide a report to City Council of works of art that require maintenance and the estimated cost of such maintenance prior to the funds being deposited in the public art maintenance fund. BACKGROUND: The Public Art Program recommends to the Finance Department that 20% of the FY26 CIP Percent-for-Art funds ($33,475) be deposited into the Maintenance Fund based on the attached report. This report will also be sent to Mary Beth Thompson for its proper designation. Additionally, we have included a detailed report for FY25 Completed/In-Progress Artwork Maintenance Projects. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS TAMMY HUNSAKER Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145460, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5460 TEL 801.535.6230 The programmatic basis for assessing artworks remains a comprehensive plan that surveyed 150 public artworks in City-owned parks, streets, plazas, and buildings, along with over 120 artworks located at the City & County Building. Funding for this report was provided by City Council in FY20. Each artwork was assigned a Priority Code Ranking from 1 to 4 with notes on each item’s installation and condition with recommended actions for maintenance and repair. The criteria for each of the priority codes are as follows: [1] Immediate action: structural issues, visually unsightly; [2] Moderate action: peeling paint, early corrosion, etc.; [3] Cleaning / waxing; and [4] Condition acceptable. Although not required of ordinance, below we have included a progress report on FY25 completed repairs from the previous year’s transmittal. FY25 COMPLETED AND IN-PROGRESS ARTWORKS CURRENTLY BEING ADDRESSED FOR MAINTENANCE AND CONSERVATION The Public Art Program is addressing maintenance needs for 26 individual artworks in the City’s permanent collection, with a total expenditure of $ $67,760. Of this, $25,900 came from the Percent-for-Art/CIP Maintenance Fund, and $41,860 from CIP General – Public Lands allocation (see Attachment A). The artworks included in the Program’s maintenance and conservation efforts vary in scope, duration, location, and total cost, and build upon the established foundations of our maintenance strategy. Most of these artworks were previously identified as Priority 2 or 4 in the Condition & Inventory Assessment Report. One additional repair outside of this report resulted from unexpected vandalism to one of Lenka Konopasek’s Secret Dwellings sculptures at Cottonwood. The sculpture was significantly compromised and portions of it need to be refabricated. This artwork is noted as Unexpected Repairs (UR*) in Attachment A. The Arts Council is also managing the restoration of three artworks at Jordan Park’s International Peace Gardens: Dawn of a New Era: Peace by Avard Fairbanks, the Chinese Lions, and the Japanese Lanterns. Of these, only Dawn of a New Era: Peace has been completed to date; the other two are currently in progress. These projects were funded by Public Lands’ CIP funds and the funds have been encumbered. Finally, individual elements of the 200 West Cycle Track Planters, a multi-piece artwork, were formally deaccessioned from the permanent collection. This was recommended by the Public Art Program and the Art Design Board and subsequently approved by Mayor Mendenhall in May 2025 and was due to repeated vandalism and irreparable damage. FY26 MAINTENANCE AND CONSERVATION ARTWORK PROJECTIONS The Public Art Program recommends that $33,475 (20% of total FY26 CIP Percent-for-Art funding) be directed towards supporting the works outlined in this transmittal. The remaining funds needed to address the projected FY26 maintenance of 19 artworks in the permanent collection ($53,450 total) will come from prior year unused contingency funds (see Attachment B). Of the total $53,450, $10,000 is set aside as standard contingency to address unexpected repairs that may arise during FY26. This amount is based on historical data from previous fiscal years. The FY26 Maintenance and Conservation strategy will follow the Program’s standard model described above. As per the Public Art Program Ordinance, once the City Council receives this report, the Percent-for-Art allocation will be issued to the Arts Council for implementation. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS TAMMY HUNSAKER Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145460, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5460 TEL 801.535.6230 While most of the FY26 maintenance and conservation efforts are guided by recommendations from the FY20 Condition & Inventory Assessment Report, the condition of some artworks has worsened since that time. As such, the Public Art Program will prioritize work based on individual artwork needs, safety concerns, structural integrity, geographic equity, cost efficiency through vendor bundling, and overall prominence within the community and collection. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION It is important to note that some artworks in the Public Art Collection require attention but are not eligible for maintenance through CIP funding. In particular, several two-dimensional works in the Fine Art Collection, housed in the City and County Building, are in need of conservation. Current CIP funding regulations prohibit the use of funds on non-capitalized objects, which include these artworks. Additionally, several of the works were funded by the CRA, but facilitated by the Arts Council. When the CRA passed the 1.5% for Art Ordinance increase, no funds were formally designated for artwork maintenance and conservation. The Arts Council may consider requesting a formal policy to designate maintenance funds from the CRA for the care of these works, as they are currently stewarded by the Arts Council with CIP funds, and no precedent exists for a designated maintenance fund. Thanks to the generous support, trust, and funding received from the Mayor and City Council, the Public Art Program has developed a comprehensive maintenance strategy that is addressing gaps within the public art collection more swiftly than previously possible. Attachments: Attachment A: FY25 Completed and In Progress Artworks Addressed for Maintenance and Conservation Attachment B: FY26 Maintenance and Conservation Artwork Projections Artist Artwork title Medium Priority Action taken District Location Vendor Funding Source Status Actual cost Day Christensen Story Wall Cast bronze 3 1) Refinish & reseal to make text readable 4 Gallivan Center 50 E 200 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Metal Arts Percent-for-Art/Maintenance CIP In Progress Through the Shelter of Love Cast bronze and 2 2) Address discoloration on sculpture Clean, wax, and polish sculpture 4 50 E 200 S, Salt Lake Metal Arts Percent-for-Art/Maintenance Neil Hadlock Portal Granite and concrete 2 1) Adress, cracks on edges and top of pieces, holes/indents on unpolished sides, 2) Clean sculpture 3) Replace didactic plaque 4 Gallivan Center 50 E 200 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Metal Arts Percent-for-Art/Maintenance CIP In Progress Lenka Konopasek Secret Dewellings Cast Bronze *UR 1) Address damage to sculpture by casting and replacing missing section of sculpture 2 1580 West North Star Metal Arts Percent-for-Art/Maintenance Kazuo Matsubayashi Astroid Landing Softly Steel, copper, sandstone, and lights 4 1) Address peeling panels which can become a safety concern, address graffiti 4 Gallivan Center 50 E 200 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Metal Arts Percent-for-Art/Maintenance CIP In Progress James McBeth Utah Sandscape Pigmented Stucco 2 1) Address water stains, cracks and crumbling concrete, and graffiti 4 Gallivan Center 50 E 200 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Metal Arts Percent-for-Art/Maintenance CIP In Progress Uknown Chinese Lions Marble 4 1) Repair broken teeth on the Chinese lion sculptures using stainless steel doweling and composite patching. 2 International Peace Gardens 1060 South 900 Wes Abstract Masonry CIP General - Public Lands In Progress Fairbanks, Avard Dawn of a New Era: Peace Concrete and terrazzo, bronze details 2 1) Cleaning, restoration, and repainting of sculpture portion 2 International Peace Gardens (Jordan Park) 1060 South 900 West Daniel Fairbanks CIP General - Public Lands Completed Fairbanks, Avard Dawn of a New Era: Peace Concrete and terrazzo, bronze details 2 1) Restoration of upper terrazzo portion and sculptural elements 2) Replacement of terrazzo base with granite 2 International Peace Gardens (Jordan Park) 1060 South 900 West Artistic Plastering and Cold Granite Springs CIP General - Public Lands Uknown Japanese Lanterns granite 2 1) Repair up to six broken corners using 8" stainless steel dowels and composite patching. 2) Fabricate and install a replacement wood lattice for the most damaged lantern (measure, cut, remove remaining stone lattice, fit/anchor new lattice, and faux paint to match). 3) Clean lanterns using specialized historic masonry cleaning solutions and pressurized steam/hot water. and water-repelling treatment. 2 International Peace Gardens 1060 South 900 West Abstract Masonry CIP General -Public Lands In Progress John Riddle & Paul Heath 200 West Planters painted concrete and mosaic tiles 2 1) Deaccessioned due to vandalism 4 Both sides of 200 South between North Temple and 700 South N/A N/A Artwork deaccessioned -$ * Unexpected Repairs 25,900.00$ 41,860.00$ 67,760.00$ 11 TOTAL EXPENSES FOR FY25 PUBLIC ART MAINTENANCE & CONSERVATION PROJECTS Number of artworks addressed in FY25 FY25 Maintenance and Conservation projects paid from other sources Artist Artwork title Landmark Design & various other artists (Day Christensen, Bonnie Sucec, Katie Coles, Kit 500 West Park Blocks Light and Steel 1 *Due to the complexity of repairing the artwork, deaccession is currently being 2 500 West Block between North Temple and 200 Day Christensen, Bonnie Sucec Glass Walls Colored Glass 3 6 Percent-for- Metal Arts $3,800 John Hess, Benjamin Higbee Courage Underfire Steel, Glass, Concrete, and Tile 3 marble repair, cleaning 2 948 W 800 S Percent-for- Art/Maintenance CIP Metal Arts Pavlos Kougioumtzis Prometheus Fire Bearing Cast Bronze 3 2 Percent-for- Day Christensen Trees (Ash)Cast Bronze 3 waxing, cleaning, and repairing damange caused 6 Percent-for- Metal Arts $4,500 Day Christensen Trees (Elm)Cast Bronze 3 5 Percent-for- Day Christensen Trees (Sycamore)Cast Bronze 3 6 1560 E 1300 S (Near Uintah Elementary Percent-for- Day Christensen Trees (Maple)Cast Bronze 3 waxing and cleaning 5 1700 E 1300 S (Jolly Pharmacy parking strip at the northeast corner) Percent-for- Art/Maintenance CIP Metal Arts Willie Littig, Nate Srok Utah Animals Steel and Rock 3 1 Percent-for- Willie Littig, Nate Srok Utah Birds Steel and Rock 3 1 Percent-for- Willie Littig, Nate Srok Utah Dinosaurs Steel and Rock 3 waxing and cleaning 1 Redwood Meadows Park, 1768 W 400 N Percent-for- Art/Maintenance CIP Metal Arts Greg Ragland Serve and Protect Cast Bronze 3 4 Percent-for- Stephen Glassman Sk8180 Galvanized Steel and 3 Fairmont Park Skate Park, 1040 E Sugarmont Percent-for- Living Lenses Wave Harmonics Stainless Steel and 3 4 Percent-for- Dennis Smith Peace Cradle Cast Bronze 3 Percent-for- Kraig Varner Children of Lgiht Cast Bronze 3 Percent-for- Sun, Moon, & All Things In-Between Ceramic Tile 3 2 Glendale Branch Library, 1440 W Concord Ave Percent-for- Art/Maintenance CIP Metal Arts Darl Thomas Faultline Stainless Steel 3 waxing and cleaning, repaint base 4 Faultline Gardens, 1041 E 400 S Percent-for- Art/Maintenance CIP Metal Arts Dan Herhart Bonneville Reliquary II Cast Bronze UR*Replace Stolen Sculpture 7 2100 South and 1300 East N/A N/A * Unexpected Repairs 10,000.00$ 43,450.00$ 53,450.00$ ATTACHMENT B: FY26 Maintenance and Conservation Artwork Projections Contingency for unexpected repairs ART COLLECTION TOTAL EXPENSES FROM PERCENT-FOR-ART/MAINTENANCE CIP This page has intentionally been left blank CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Austin Kimmel DATE:November 25, 2025 RE: CLIMATE FORWARD SLC ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE Goal of the briefing: To review the Department of Sustainability’s efforts to update the City’s climate plan, known as Climate Forward SLC. Climate Forward SLC is expected to return to the Council in 2026 for formal consideration. At this stage, no action or public hearing is required. POLICY QUESTIONS Federal Policy Changes & Funding: The Council may wish to ask Sustainability whether it has identified any impediments to reaching the established renewable energy and carbon emissions reduction goals as a result of changes to the current federal administration’s climate policy. Does the Department foresee any changes to its awarded EPA grant funding, and if so, what contingency plans are in place? Implementation Costs: The Council could request that Climate Forward SLC include estimated implementation costs for the strategies it identifies, along with recommendations for funding those initiatives. Page | 2 3.Coordination with Other Departments and Plans: The Council could ask Sustainability how it intends to collaborate with other Administrative Departments to accomplish the goals laid out in Climate Forward SLC. Additionally, the Council could ask how Climate Forward SLC will interact with other existing plans, such as the City’s housing plan, transportation plan, or parks and open space plan. 4.Public Engagement: The Council could ask Sustainability to elaborate on its public engagement process including how it involves communities most impacted by climate change and air pollution in Salt Lake City. 5.Progress to Date: The Council could request a general update on the progress Salt Lake City has made toward its renewable energy and carbon emissions reduction goals since adopting the joint resolutions in 2016 and 2019. ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION Climate Forward SLC aims to identify the challenges Salt Lake City is likely to face due to climate change, provide actionable strategies to address those challenges, and establish metrics to evaluate progress toward the City’s identified climate goals. Its focus will be on key sectors including "energy, air quality, commercial and residential buildings, waste, transportation, food systems, municipal operations, and climate resiliency (heat, wildfire, water)." The plan is guided by three primary goals identified by the Administration: 1. Reaffirm the City’s commitment to our 2040 Climate Goals: Reaffirm the City’s commitment to 100% renewable electricity by 2030 and 80% emissions reduction by 2040 by aligning efforts across City departments, community initiatives, and partner organizations. 2. Prioritize Climate Strategies that are Scalable and Equitable: Focus on strategies that cut emissions, save money, create jobs, and build healthier, more resilient neighborhoods. Ensure that the benefits of these solutions reach those most in needs. 3. Identify Actionable Solutions and Fill Gaps: Focus on strategies that cut emissions, save money, create jobs, and build healthier, more resilient neighborhoods. Ensure that the benefits of these solutions reach those most in needs. Sustainability’s Climate Forward SLC planning effort is supported by the Greater Salt Lake Clean Energy and Air Roadmap (SL-CLEAR). This initiative brings together local and regional leaders across Salt Lake and Tooele counties to reduce air pollution. SL-CLEAR’s work is funded by a federal grant Salt Lake City received in 2023 through the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Climate Pollution Reduction Grants (CPRG) program. The Department’s on-call consultant budget has also supported Climate Forward SLC’s work. The Department does not anticipate needing additional funding to complete the planning process. Relevant Prior Council Actions Joint Resolution 33 of 2016 In 2016, the Council and Mayor adopted a joint resolution establishing renewable energy and carbon emissions reduction goals for Salt Lake City. The goals included achieving 100% renewable energy for Salt Lake City Corporation operations by 2032 and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2040. Joint Resolution 23 of 2019 In 2016, the Council and Mayor adopted a joint resolution updating its 100% renewable energy goal date to 2030. Resolution 14 of 2020 Page | 4 In 2020, the Council adopted a resolution outlining the City Council’s expectations and legislative role to “adopt policies and ordinances to address the present and future needs of the city and to guide growth and development within the city.” The resolution emphasizes the importance of presenting plans to the City Council and providing regular updates, including early in the plan’s process, to gather input and feedback. TIMELINE Sustainability, which began its work in August 2025, anticipates completing Climate Forward SLC within approximately 10 months from this briefing, with a presentation of the final plan to the City Council for formal adoption. ATTACHMENTS Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan Climate Forward SLC City Council Update | November 18, 2025 Debbie Lyons, Director Sophia Nicholas, Deputy Director Catherine Wyffels, Sr. Air Quality and Environmental Program Manager Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan What We've Achieved Where We're At Today’s Agenda What We're Hearing Looking Ahead Why a Climate Plan? Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan Why This Matters? Source: https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake- city/2024/07/08/utah-heat-waves-longer-hotter-climate-change Source: https://www.abc4.com/utah-weather/utah-heat-is- cranking-up-with-record-high-temperatures-in-the-forecast/ Source: https://www.deseret.com/utah/2023/1/7/23543113/when-will-great-salt-lake-dry- warning-from-experts/ Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan Why a Climate Plan? •In 2016 and 2019, the City Council and Mayor issued joint resolutions establishing the goals of achieving 100% renewable energy for SLC by 2030 and reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80% percent by 2040 (compared to a 2009 baseline). •Over the past decade, we have achieved a lot, learned a lot, and been faced with new and evolving challenges. It’s time to affirm our goals, refresh our approach, and define next steps. Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan Our Goals The update of SLC’s climate plan is guided by three overarching goals: Reaffirm or refine the City’s commitment to our 2040 climate goals Prioritize climate strategies that are scalable and equitable Identify actionable solutions and fill gaps Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan Why a Climate Plan? •Make sure we are set up to achieve what we said we would. •Ensure all our climate-related efforts are aligned. •Identify / address gaps and inconsistencies as well as real and perceived conflicts. •Leverage resources and work efforts to achieve multi-benefit outcomes. •Formally adopt SLC’s climate action plan as part of the city’s planning framework. Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan What Is a Climate Plan? Key Components -Emission Reduction Targets (80% by 2040) -Mitigation Strategies to reach emission reduction goal -Adaptation Measures to respond to climate impacts -Monitoring and Reporting to track progress Examples from Other Plans -100% Net-Zero Energy by 2040 -75% waste diverted from landfill by 2030 -50% reduction in building emissions by 2040 -30% reduction in transportation emissions by 2030 Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan Looking ahead: What is the process? Engagement Analysis Draft Plan Adoption Action Fall 2025 Winter 2026 Spring 2026 Summer 2026 Ongoing Council Briefing Existing Conditions Report Draft Plan Transmittal ongoing community and partner engagement we are here Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan SLC’s Planning Framework PLAN SALT LAKE •Citywide vision for growth, sustainability, and livability through 2040 •Guiding Principle #5: Air Quality is a “system” or “element” plan that implements Plan SLC, interfaces with other system plans, and guides policy, investment, and action Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan SLC’s Climate Planning Framework •The City has multiple plans and programs that support climate priorities, but there are gaps. •Connect SLC and Housing SLC include several strategies that reduce the climate impact of the transportation and buildings sectors. •Climate Forward SLC will identify any gaps and opportunities to enhance climate action in these sectors. •Several plans address green spaces and climate resiliency. •Climate Forward SLC will evaluate the need for additional strategies to reduce heat-island effect and mitigate extreme heat. Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan What We’ve Achieved We have a lot to be proud of •80 MW Elektron Solar Project provides ~80% of the City’s municipal energy and saved $1.5 million on electricity bills •Utah Renewable Communities – 19 govt's & RMP partnership to achieve community-wide electricity goals •SLC Airport LEED Gold Certified and using 100% electric ground support equipment •Built the country’s first two net zero fire stations •Continued integrating alternative transportation infrastructure into major roadway projects •Purchased hundreds of alternative fuel and electric vehicles And much, much more! Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan Areas of Focus The updated plan will build on the structure and success of Climate Positive 2040 (our administrative plan from 2016) to address emissions and adaptation goals related to: Energy Transportation Buildings Food Waste Climate Resiliency Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan Salt Lake Clean Energy and Air Roadmap (SL-CLEAR) EPA’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grants (CPRG) program: Draft Climate Action Plan for the Salt Lake MSA is available for comment Plan was informed by input from local governments, community members, and technical experts This planning effort is leveraged to develop Climate Forward SLC Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan Where We Are The Existing Conditions Report summarizes issues and opportunities that will drive the plan update. •Our Changing Context •Climate Hazards + Vulnerability •Community GHG Inventory •Existing Policies, Programs + Plans •Community Input Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan Our Changing Context •Our geographic location defines us, but also creates climate challenges. •We are growing more rapidly than most places. •We are becoming increasingly diverse. •Housing affordability is a critical issue that is affecting many of our residents. Our climate solutions need to make living here more affordable. Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan Climate Hazards + Vulnerability •Our primary climate risks are driven by rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns. •We are among the top three metro areas for urban heat island intensity, with the west side of the city disproportionately affected by extreme heat. Urban development exacerbates this problem. •Drought is a long-term challenge and leads to competition between water for human consumption and for agriculture and landscaping. •Low-income communities are more vulnerable to climate hazards due to socio-economic conditions, health disparities, pollution exposure, and inadequate infrastructure. Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan Community GHG Inventory •Community greenhouse gas emissions fell 11% from 2009 to 2024, primarily due to a shift toward cleaner energy resources. •Per capita emissions declined 25% from 2009 to 2024, illustrating that local economic and population growth have been partially decoupled from emissions. •Accelerated uptake of decarbonization solutions (renewable energy and building and vehicle electrification) are key to meeting our goal. Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan Outreach Summary Community Outreach Efforts (July – October) Online Public Survey - 720 responses Intercept Surveys - 215 responses •75% at westside locations Tabling events - 15+ events Next Business online survey Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan What We’re Hearing Survey respondents report they are generally well-informed about climate change and its impacts. Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan Respondents are most concerned about drought and lack of water, and air pollution and its impacts. Public Input on Climate Concerns Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan Public Input on Climate Priorities •Making it easier to insulate their homes and save money •Providing 100 percent clean, renewable electricity for homes and businesses •Increasing street trees in their neighborhoods •Improving access to transit, walking, and biking Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan Looking ahead: What is the process? Engagement Analysis Draft Plan Adoption Action Fall 2025 Winter 2026 Spring 2026 Summer 2026 Ongoing Council Briefing Existing Conditions Report Draft Plan Transmittal ongoing community and partner engagement we are here SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 09/25/2025 Date Sent to Council: 09/30/2025 From: Department * Sustainability Employee Name: O'Malley, Monica E-mail monica.omalley@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 09/25/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 09/29/2025 Subject: Climate Forward SLC Additional Staff Contact:Presenters/Staff Table Sophia Nicholas, Sustainability Deputy Director, Sophia.Nicholas@slc.gov Catherine Wyffels, Air Quality & Environmental Program Manager, Catherine.Wyffels@slc.gov Document Type Information Item Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: The Department of Sustainability is informing the Council about Climate Forward SLC, an effort to update the City’s climate plan, and invites discussion on the plan development and public engagement processes. 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 Climate Forward SLC Transmittal Background The Sustainability Department is submitting this transmittal to inform City Council of development of the Climate Forward SLC plan, which will update the City’s climate strategy and will be proposed for formal Council adoption in 2026. This effort will identify key priorities to help the City reach our 2040 greenhouse gas reduction goal, reduce air pollution, and build more resilient neighborhoods. The Plan will be accompanied by a list of possible near-term actions, which the Sustainability Department will use to guide our efforts over the next five years. Salt Lake City Salt Lake City is committed to protecting the public health and safety of its residents, including ensuring access to clean air, clean water and a livable environment. As such, the City has a responsibility to take meaningful action to address climate change and mitigate its impacts on residents, businesses, and government operations. We are already experiencing the consequences of a warming and drying climate. Over the past century, Utah’s average temperature has increased by more than 2.5°F, and over the last 50 years, the rate of warming has been approximately twice the global average. These changes are expected to increase and will have far-reaching implications for the City, intensifying the threats of drought, wildfires, and flooding. Climate impacts include: - Extreme Heat: Extreme heat is the deadliest form of natural disaster and is often referred to as a “silent killer.” This is one of the most urgent climate threats in our region with temperatures expected to rise in the coming years. The effects of rising temperatures are not experienced equally. Vulnerable populations who are at greatest risk include people who are unhoused, living in places with little or no access to green spaces or air conditioning, and people with underlying health conditions. - Drought: Drought is another high priority risk with potential region-wide effects on the water supply and the health of the Great Salt Lake. Warmer temperatures will likely extend dry periods. Additionally, we expect to see declines in snowfall, snow cover, and the duration of the snow season. These trends will lead to more frequent and severe drought conditions. Drought conditions not only have consequences for water security, but also for public health due to increased dust pollution. - Wildfires: Wildfire risk is projected to increase as well, but the threat is mainly concentrated in higher elevation areas. However, smoke from fires can have consequences for the air quality of the entire region, putting public health at risk. Overall, these events pose significant threats to infrastructure, public safety, and can result in substantial economic losses for both individuals and government entities. - Floods: Flooding, while less likely, poses significant risk along the Jordan River and in canyon areas, but impact of flooding on water resources could affect many people. Flood events can cause extensive damage to homes, roads, schools, and other critical infrastructure, and pose a serious threat to human life. Salt Lake City’s general plan, “Plan Salt Lake”, acknowledges the City’s commitment to sustainable growth and development: “Salt Lake City is committed to sustainable growth and development. The Sustainable Salt Lake – Plan 2015 reflects our current broad and ambitious agenda to protect our resources, enhance our assets, and establish a path toward greater resiliency and vitality for every aspect of our community. Plan Salt Lake builds upon the principles and goals identified in Sustainable Salt Lake, incorporating sustainability principles throughout the Plan with the goal of livability and making our City one of the greenest, most inclusive, and economically viable cities in the country.” Following the adoption of the general plan, the City made specific climate commitments with the adoption of joint Mayor-Council resolution 33 of 2016, establishing goals to achieve 100% renewable energy for our community by 2032 and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% percent by 2040 (compared to a 2009 baseline). In 2019, the Mayor and Council adopted Joint Resolution 23 of 2019 which moved the target date for 100% renewable energy up two years, to 2030 to comply with state code (§54-17-901 to -909) adopted in the 2019 legislative session. Since this initial commitment, the City has made substantial progress toward these goals, and the Sustainability Department has documented climate strategies through development of Administrative strategy documents such as the Climate Positive 2040 plan. In 2023, Salt Lake City received funding through EPA’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grants (CPRG) program to develop a climate plan for the Salt Lake Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), called The Greater Salt Lake Clean Energy and Air Roadmap (SL-CLEAR). The Sustainability Department has been leading this effort with input and support from local governments across Salt Lake County and Tooele counties along with a diverse set of stakeholders across multiple sectors in the region. Sustainability is leveraging this larger planning effort to develop Climate Forward SLC, a climate plan specifically for Salt Lake City. Climate Forward SLC Overview The accompanying handout provides an overview of the Climate Forward SLC plan process. Climate Forward SLC will identify the challenges and opportunities the City will face because of climate change, focus on actionable strategies, and establish metrics to evaluate progress toward our climate goals. Specifically, the plan will identify strategies and metrics in key climate sectors such as energy, air quality, commercial and residential buildings, waste, transportation, food systems, municipal operations, and climate resiliency (heat, wildfire, water). The plan will build upon the guiding principles established in Plan Salt Lake, particularly the air quality and natural environment principles. In addition, the Climate Forward plan will acknowledge the work of other City departments that encompass climate and align with the priorities of this effort. It will also complement and, where appropriate, defer to other City plans such as Housing SLC, Growing Water Smart, Urban Forestry Action Plan, Reimagine Nature, and Connect SLC. For additional context, examples of climate plans that have been formally adopted by other cities, including in Utah, include: - Provo’s Conservation and Resiliency Plan - Moab’s Sustainability Action Plan - City of Hopkins Climate Solutions Plan - Boise’s Climate Action Roadmap Scope of Work and Timeline The Climate Forward SLC planning effort is supported by the grant-funded SL-CLEAR planning efforts and supplemented by Sustainability’s on-call consultant budget. The Department does not anticipate requiring additional budget allocation in FY26 to complete the planning process. The scope of work for developing this plan includes: - Communication: Develop project website and other communication materials. - Engagement: Conduct community engagement through a public survey and intercept surveys; seek feedback from other City Departments, partner organizations, and the business community. - Plan Development: Prepare existing conditions report. Draft, design, and write the plan, including working drafts and final version. Respond to and address internal and public comments received. - Near Term Action Plan: Identify priorities and actions needed to meet climate goals, which can serve as a resource to strategically guide the City’s work and inform budget decisions for the next five years. - Plan Adoption Process: Follow required plan adoption process, including obtaining Mayor’s approvals, informing and engaging City Council, and presenting the plan to the City Council for potential adoption. The project is expected to take approximately 12 months from this request. A robust public process is central to this plan. Sustainability has initiated outreach efforts specific to Climate Forward SLC this summer, which builds on other climate-related engagement the Department has conducted over the past two years. Below is a summary of the past, ongoing, and anticipated future engagement activities. The feedback gathered through these initiatives will directly inform development of this plan. Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air Roadmap (SL-CLEAR) [2023- present] The SL-CLEAR plan, being developed through EPA’s CPRG program, incorporates feedback from a variety outreach efforts, including: - An online public survey published in 2024 that received over 900 responses. - Extensive engagement with jurisdictional partners and organizational stakeholders in 2023 and 2024 around air quality, climate change, energy, and transportation issues in the region. - Convening regular meetings with an Environmental Justice (EJ) Committee formed with University Neighborhood Partners to involve Westside residents in the development of the plan, including identifying concerns related to climate change impacts and prioritizing different mitigation strategies. These meetings are ongoing. - Invited the Mayor and Councilmembers of participating jurisdictions to participate in informal interviews in Fall 2024. The purpose of these interviews was to inform the approach and priorities of the SL-Clear plan. For Salt Lake City, we interviewed the Mayor and three Councilmembers as part of this effort. Public Survey and Tabling Activities (Ongoing) The Sustainability Department has begun seeking community input through an online survey, which is currently open to the public. The primary objective of this survey is to collect feedback regarding our residents’ awareness of and concerns about the impacts of climate change, assess familiarity with various climate solutions, and help identify community priorities to guide the Climate Forward SLC plan development. In addition to the survey, we have developed tabling activities designed to facilitate conversations with residents about climate-related issues and to better understand their priorities. The insights gathered through these tabling events are closely aligned with the survey, and we continue to encourage residents to complete the full survey. To ensure broad and representative participation, we will review respondent demographics weekly. This will allow us to evaluate the effectiveness of our survey distribution and promotional strategies and make adjustments as needed. The survey is expected to remain open through October 31, 2025. Intercept Surveys (early fall) Beginning in September, Sustainability is conducting intercept surveys at various locations throughout the community. The primary objective of these surveys is to gather input on residents’ awareness of and concerns regarding the impacts of climate change, as well as their familiarity with a range of climate solutions. External Stakeholders (September-January) Sustainability plans to engage organizations that serve underrepresented communities, as well as environmental advocacy groups, to inform them about this planning initiative and encourage them to share the survey through their communication networks. We will also seek input from the business community through a survey to better understand the perspectives and priorities of businesses in the City. As the plan development progresses, these organizations and members of the business community will also be invited to participate in targeted discussions to help shape the plan’s priorities. Community Councils and Internal Stakeholders (September-October) Sustainability plans to share our survey through community councils, the Mayor’s community liaisons, and other internal partners. We will offer to present at Community Council public meetings to talk about our process. The draft plan will be shared through Community councils and community organizations, inviting residents to view and comment on the draft plan during the formal public comment period. Formal Public Comment Period The public will be invited to provide input on the draft plan during a 45-day public comment period, likely in Spring 2026. Next Steps Sustainability’s intention is to develop a climate plan that City Council may consider for formal adoption. In pursuit of this objective, the timeline and process described in this transmittal are intended to follow the requirements for a Title 19 adopted plan, but we welcome further discussion with the City Council this fall about the appropriate adoption process the Department should follow. August 26, 2025 • Mayor Mendenhall signed the initiation petition for this plan, completing the initial step in the formal adoption process. • Informational transmittal sent to City Council. Fall 2025 • Public engagement efforts continue through surveys. • Public input is reviewed. • Prepare existing conditions report. • Establish appropriate plan adoption process. Winter 2025-26 • Send informational update to City Council, sharing existing conditions report and summary of public input. Spring 2026 • Send informational update to City Council sharing draft plan to be proposed for public comment. Summer 2026 • Present final draft to Planning Commission for recommendation. • Send briefing to City Council with final draft plan, and Planning Commission and Mayor’s recommendations. • Present final draft plan at a City Council meeting for potential adoption. Discussion: The Sustainability Department is open to discussing and receiving feedback from the City Council on the plan development and adoption process, and priority climate issues. This page has intentionally been left blank What is Climate Forward SLC? In 2016, Salt Lake City adopted a joint Mayor-Council resolution to achieve 100% renewable energy for our community by 2032 and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% percent by 2040 (compared to a 2009 baseline). In 2019, the City moved its target date for 100% renewable energy up two years, to 2030. Since then, we have achieved a lot, learned a lot, and been faced with new and evolving challenges. We are now taking the next step in Climate Forward SLC—to affirm the City’s climate goals, refresh our approach, and focus on the critical steps we need to take in the next five years. WHAT ARE WE DOING? We are updating the plan and will present it to City Council for adoption in 2026. The plan will guide City staff, investments, and partnerships across key areas like energy, buildings, transportation, and waste. It will also address emerging issues that are impacting our communities as we face a hotter, drier climate—looking at food system resiliency, water, heat, and green spaces. Finally, we’re exploring how these efforts can support more affordable living and help grow a strong economy with good jobs and a well-trained workforce. OUR COMMITMENT TO A SUSTAINABLE SALT LAKE CITY Plan Salt Lake, adopted in 2015, defined the city’s commitment to “protect our resources, enhance our assets, and establish a path toward greater resiliency and vitality for every aspect of our community.” Climate Forward SLC is our next step in living up to that commitment. (Left) Biking and walking through shady, tree-filled Liberty Park; (Center) Robin San Pedro enjoying fresh greens from a neighborhood garden that received an SLC Food Microgrant. Photo credit: Alexandra Parvaz; (Right) Rooftop solar installed on an SLCgov facility THE EFFORT IS GUIDED BY THREE OVERARCHING GOALS: Reaffirm the City’s commitment to our 2040 Climate Goals Reaffirm the City’s commitment to 100% renewable electricity by 2030 and 80% emissions reduction by 2040 by aligning efforts across City departments, community initiatives, and partner organizations. Prioritize Climate Strategies that are Scalable and Equitable Focus on strategies that cut emissions, save money, create jobs, and build healthier, more resilient neighborhoods. Ensure that the benefits of these solutions reach those most in needs. Identify Actionable Solutions and Fill Gaps Develop actionable solutions that tie long- term targets with short-term decisions and budgets. Fill in gaps missing or ongoing actions needed to meet City’s climate goals. HOW CAN THE COMMUNITY GET INVOLVED? We have launched an online survey and we are doing pop-ups at community events this summer and fall to raise awareness, promote the survey, and seek input on community priorities. We are also working with our Environmental Justice Resident Committee to ensure we hear all voices. There will be additional opportunities as the draft plan comes together to discuss what we all can do to achieve our community’s goals. SLCgreen staff member Salvador Brown gathering feedback on the Climate Forward plan. WHAT’S THE TIMELINE? Reflection Spring 2025 • What’s worked? • Opportunity areas? • Goals update? Engagement Summer and Fall 2025 • Community survey • Intercept surveys• Tabling • Internal stakeholder input Draft Plan Fall 2025 and Winter 2026 • Element Plan • Action Plan • Inter- departmental review Adoption Spring and Summer 2026 • Public comment • Final Draft Plan • Planning Committee hearing • City Council adoption Action Ongoing • Investments • Partnerships Questions? Contact Sophia Nicholas (sophia.nicholas@slc.gov) or Catherine Wyffels (catherine.wyffels@slc.gov) This page has intentionally been left blank CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF MEMO CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Austin Kimmel DATE:November 25, 2025 RE: CONSOLIDATED FEE SCHEDULE (CFS) CORRECTION - MISSING TITLE AND DESCRIPTION NEW INFORMATION – NOVEMBER 25, 2025 17.16.520: UNMETERED FIRE PROTECTION PIPES PERMITTED WHEN: NEW INFORMATION – OCTOBER 14, 2025 UPDATED Item Schedule: Page | 3 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. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE BACKGROUND FINANCIAL IMPACT REDLINED CFS SCHEDULE Page | 4 The projected revenue shortfall under various phase-in options, as well as the total anticipated annual revenue from the fire line fees. To what extent could the phase-in mitigate the $740,237 estimated if the fee were not implemented at all. How would the delayed implementation impact the department’s ability to fund budgeted projects and other critical projects? And to what extent some projects may reasonably be delayed to accommodate the phase-in. Whether the delayed implementation of the fire line fees over multiple years would result in revenue needed to be made up for through other fees or compensated in future fiscal years. Answering the first question, we considered two phase in options for the fire line fee, Phase 1 is a 2 year implementation and Phase 2 is a 3 year implementation. We also considered who will bear the costs that are associated with maintaining this system. This table shows the expected revenue over 3 years, FY26-FY28, and the revenue shortfall for the two options and our previous rate structure of $1 per inch: FY26 FY27 FY28 Revenue & Shortfall Current Rate $ 2,011,429 $ 2,112,000 $ 2,217,600 $ 6,341,030 Phase 1 $ 1,005,714 $ 2,112,000 $ 2,217,600 $ (1,005,714) Phase 2 $ 670,476 $ 1,408,000 $ 2,217,600 $ (2,044,953) Previous Rate $ 271,692 $ 271,692 $ 271,692 $ (5,525,954) To answer the second question, these are maintenance and operational costs of the system to provide the level of service required by existing infrastructure. Postponing maintenance any longer than we already have creates substantial risk of failure that is more costly to repair than to maintain. Any shortfall in revenue to pay for the maintenance and repair of the system is paid for using debt through bonds or loans, and will therefore have to be paid back with interest in future rates. To answer the third question, any delay in implementing the rates will need to be made up in future years since we cannot escape the costs of operating and maintaining the system. We approached this in two ways, first is applying these costs to the customers who create them, ie fire lines, and second is to apply this to other customers. This table shows the rates that would be established in FY28 to make up for the revenue loss: Current Rate Phase 1 Phase 2 FY28 $ 9.24 $ 10.29 $ 14.71 Commercial Multi-Family Residential All Customers Accounts 12251 3273 72875 88399 Phase 1 Increase $ 6.84 $ 25.61 $ 1.15 $ 0.95 Phase 2 Increase $ 13.91 $ 52.07 $ 2.34 $ 1.93 Previous Rate $ 37.59 $ 140.70 $ 6.32 $ 5.21 SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 08/28/2025 Date Sent to Council: 09/03/2025 From: Department * Public Utilities Employee Name: Jorgensen, Jacob E-mail jacob.jorgensen@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 08/28/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 09/02/2025 Subject: CFS Correction - Missing Title and Description Additional Staff Contact: Lisa Tarufelli - Lisa.Tarufelli@slc.govBriefer, Laura - Laura.Briefer@slc.gov Presenters/Staff Table Lisa Tarufelli - Lisa.Tarufelli@slc.govBriefer, Laura - Laura.Briefer@slc.govJacob Jorgensen - jacob.jorgensen@slc.gov Document Type Ordinance Budget Impact? Yes No Budget Impact: Approximately $740,237 in uncollected revenue that was budgeted for and rates set to collect. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve adding the Title "Fire Lines" and the Description "Per Inch" which was inadvertently left off of one of the rate tables in the CFS. The title "fire lines" was included in the original submission to the City Council and the rates are being applied the same as they have been historically, which is per inch size of the connection since 1981. This was updated as part of the comprehensive rate study for Water. Background/Discussion These rates were presented as part of the rate study to City Council and the public and published as part of the update rates for Public Utilities. The fee for fire lines is contained in Ordinance 17.16.520 and has been established since at least 1981 (last date of record that we've been able to confirm) and has always been charged per inch size of the connection.since t change the way the rate is applied and the rate study simply updated the cost of service to establish the new rate amount. The rate table itself is published in the CFS, however, without the title and description customers are unaware that it applies to fire lines. This is what we would like to have corrected to avoid any confusion from the customers and correct this error in the published CFS. I have included as attachments the updated redlined CFS and the final rates published from the Water Rate Study. Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process This was presented as part of the rate study to City Council and the public and published as part of the update rates for Public Utilities. The fee for fire lines is contained in Ordinance 17.16.520 and has been established since at least 1981 (last date of record that we've been able to confirm). Legal has reviewed this and the rate is allowable and part of this correction could have been done using "scrivener's error" since the title "Fire Lines" was in the redlined CFS. However, since the description was left off of how the rate is applied, we are correcting both parts through this process of City Council approval of a CFS change. This page has intentionally been left blank WATER For questions regarding Water fees contact: 801.483.6900 Service Fee Monthly Service Fee Size of connection Monthly Amount City County 5/8 inch - 3/4 inch $22.48 $30.35 17.16.670 1 inch $28.57 $38.57 17.16.670 1 1/2 inch $43.66 $58.94 17.16.670 2 inch $61.85 $83.50 17.16.670 3 inch $110.40 $149.04 17.16.670 4 inch $164.95 $222.68 17.16.670 6 inch $316.43 $427.18 17.16.670 8 inch $498.28 $672.68 17.16.670 10 inch $710.49 $959.16 17.16.670 12 inch $1,036.26 $1,398.95 17.16.670 Fire Hydrant $399.49 $539.31 17.16.590 Low Income Abatement: Customer who are granted abatement for taxes on their dwelling shall be granted a five dollar fifty cent ($5.50) abatement of the minimum monthly charge. Fire Lines Size of connection Monthly Amount per inch City County 2 inch $0.84 $1.13 17.16.520 3 inch $1.68 $2.27 17.16.520 4 inch $2.62 $3.54 17.16.520 6 inch $5.23 $7.06 17.16.520 8 inch $8.38 $11.31 17.16.520 10 inch $12.04 $16.25 17.16.520 12 inch $17.67 $23.85 17.16.520 Water Meter Rates Account Type Amount Used Volumetric Rate City County Single family residence Block 1: 0-5 hundred cubic feet $2.84 $3.83 Block 2: 6-10 hundred cubic feet (except as increased for Urban Vegetable Gardens) $3.49 $4.71 Block 3: 11-40 hundred cubic feet $4.46 $6.02 Block 4: >40 hundred cubic feet $4.92 $6.64 Duplex residence / or Single residence with Accessory Dwelling Unit Block 1: 0-10 hundred cubic feet $2.84 $3.83 Block 2: 11-20 hundred cubic feet $3.49 $4.71 Block 3: 21-80 hundred cubic feet $4.46 $6.02 Block 4: >80 hundred cubic feet $4.92 $6.64 Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 48 EXHIBIT A Triplex residence Block 1: 0-15 hundred cubic feet $2.84 $3.83 Block 2: 16-30 hundred cubic feet $3.49 $4.71 Block 3: 31-120 hundred cubic feet $4.46 $6.02 Block 4: >120 hundred cubic feet $4.92 $6.64 City Rates County Rates Summer Rate (April - October) Winter Rate (November - March) Summer Rate (April - October) Winter Rate (November - March) Multi-Family Residential 3.35 $2.18 $4.52 $2.94 Commercial and Non-Residential 3.53 $2.18 $4.77 $2.94 Note: Customers with defective plumbing or unexplained deceases in usage of more than 25 percent may be adjusted back to a prior AWC, or be assigned the class average by meter size. In cases where class average is not available or is not reasonable, the Director may use other consumption information specific to such account to determine AWC. The amount used is referred to as a block or tier rate. Account Type Amount Used Volumetric Rate Irrigation City County 100 Cubic feet to target budget $2.93 $3.96 Over target budget Up to 300% of target budget $4.09 $5.52 Over 300% of target budget $4.30 $5.81 Note: "Irrigation account" means an account established for applying water for irrigation and landscaping only, as determined by the Public Utilities Director or designee. "Target budget" means the estimated amount of water consumed per acre, as established by the Public Utilities Director or designee each year for customer based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration, and considering efficient water practices. A different target budget is established for each month of the irrigation season. Account Type Amount Used Rate (Summer)Flat Rate (Winter) Secondary Irrigation Per Acre Foot Per ccf Per Acre Foot Per ccf 0 Cubic feet to target budget $285.32 $0.66 Over target budget Up to 300% of target budget $653.04 $1.50 $285.32 $0.66 Over 300% of target budget $1,096.76 $2.52 Note: "Secondary Irrigation account" means an account established for applying water for irrigation and landscaping secondary to the culinary water system for select municipal parks and golf courses only, as determined by the Public Utilities Director or her designee. "Target budget" means the estimated amount of water consumed per acre, as established by the Public Utilities Director or designee each year for customer based on factors including, but not limited to, evapotranspiration, and considering efficient water practices. A different target budget is established for each month of the irrigation season. Miscellaneous Fees City County Urban Vegetable Garden Credit Adjustment Credit per ordinance NA Based on garden size 17.16.685 Deposit for water - residential $75 $75 17.16.380 Deposit for water - business $100 $100 Retail, warehouse, offices 17.16.380 Deposit for water - small restaurants $150 $150 17.16.380 Deposit for water - Laundromats, large restaurants $300 $300 17.16.380 Deposit for water - car washes $600 $600 17.16.380 Meter Test Fee - 5/8" to 1"$145 17.16.050 Meter Test Fee - 1 1/2" to 2"$290 17.16.050 Meter Test Fee - larger than 2"Actual costs 17.16.050 Water turn on - turn off $30 17.16.660 Illegal turn on fee $80 $80 17.16.660 Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 49 Bankruptcy deposit Highest two monthly bills over the previous 12 months period 17.16.660 Charges for water Minimum charges apply See Section 17.16.590 17.16.590 Damage to padlock, inline lock or lock out sleeve Actual costs 17.16.050 Deposit for fire hydrant meter $1,000 $100 not refundable 17.16.050 Opt-out of Advance Metering Infrastructure (AMI) -monthly fee $40 17.16.050 Rain Barrel Actual Costs Plus sales tax Grass Seed Actual Costs Plus sales tax Unauthorized meter, hydrant, or utility access First incident $500 17.16.810 Subsequent incidents previous charge + $500 17.16.810 Plumber or Contractor First incident $1,000 17.16.110 Plumber or Contractor Subsequent incidents previous charge +$500 17.16.110 Construction Water - Fill-up at Department on Public Utilities $50 Includes 4 fill-ups at Public Utilities shops Canyon water surplus sales (for contracts that are not tied to the rate established by the average MWDSLS rate paid by SLC) Contract volume 800 gallons per day $415.65 per year or current MWDSLS rate 17.04.030 Contract volume 400 gallons per day $207.83 per year or current MWDSLS rate 17.04.030 Water Connection Fees - Contact 801.483.6727 17.16.040 Classification Dwelling Meter Size City Connection Fee** County Connection Fee** Meter Hardware & Installation Fee* Residential Single family 3/4 inch $1,871.00 $1,952.00 *See Note - actual cost Single family 1 inch $3,297.00 $3,494.00 *See Note - actual cost Duplex 1 inch $2,234.00 $2,432.00 *See Note - actual cost Triplex 1 inch $2,371.00 $2,492.00 *See Note - actual cost Fourplex 1 inch $3,401.00 $3,580.00 *See Note - actual cost Commercial/Industrial Culinary Meter 3/4 inch $2,000.00 $2,125.00 *See Note - actual cost 1 inch $3,830.00 $4,213.00 *See Note - actual cost 1.5 inch $7,584.00 $8,322.00 *See Note - actual cost 2 inch $11,776.00 $12,834.00 *See Note - actual cost 3 inch $23,678.00 $25,838.00 *See Note - actual cost 4 inch $27,359.00 $27,359.00 *See Note - actual cost 6 inch $54,718.00 $54,718.00 *See Note - actual cost 8 inch $87,549.00 $87,549.00 *See Note - actual cost * Cost includes actual hardware cost, meter construction costs, labor costs, and one inspection. Price will be provided upon request. **Meters not listed will be charged at actual hardware cost, inspection fees, and applicable resource and impact fees. ***For meters 4-inches and larger a water resource fee shall be added. The fee is based on the ratio of the projected usage (gpd) as determined by the AWWA M-22 method to the equivalent residential unit amount of 449 gpd multiplied by $106. Fire Service Connection Charges *** Contact number 801.483.6727 Detector check - Fee listed does not include hardware and meter. Any hardware and meter to be charged at actual cost. 6-inch Price upon request Not allowed for new development or redevelopment - replacement only.17.16.050 8-inch $3,334.20 17.16.050 10-inch $5,272.02 17.16.050 Fire Lines -Fee listed does not include hardware and meter. Any hardware and meter to be charged at actual cost. 2-inch $355.00 17.16.050 4-inch $355.00 17.16.050 6-inch $601.00 17.16.050 8-inch $819.00 17.16.050 10-inch $1,091.00 17.16.050 12-inch $1,309.00 17.16.050 Water Inspection Fees ***Contact number 801.483.6727 New hydrant inspection $135.00 Per each inspection 17.16.050 New hydrant inspection - Long $240.00 Per each inspection 17.16.050 Water inspection fees $110.00 New installation, repair, service, or terminate (kill) inspection; Per each inspection or trip 17.16.050 Relocation of hydrant inspection $220.00 Includes move and terminate 17.16.050 Relocation of water meter inspection $220.00 Includes move and terminate 17.16.050 Water Used During Construction Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 50 Residential Metered Rates 17.16.350 Commercial Metered rates 17.16.350 Other Water Utility Fees Water Pressure Test (Flow Test) for Water Mains under 12"$455.00 Per Test 17.16.050 Water Pressure Test (Flow Test) for water mains greater than 12:$800.00 Per Test 17.16.050 Kills - Meters under 3"$55.00 17.16.050 Kills - Meters 3" or larger $160.00 17.16.050 Inspect Auto Fire Sprinklers less than 2"$136.00 Per Inspection 17.16.040 Inspect Auto Fire Sprinklers 2" or greater $369.00 Per Inspection 17.16.040 Plan Review Fee - Less than 1 acre $216.00 Per Review 17.16.050 Plan Review Fee - Tenant Remodel/Residential Remodel $39.00 Per Review 17.16.050 Plan Review Fee - 1 - 5 acres $1,060.00 Per Review 17.16.350 Plan Review Fee - Greater than 5 acres $2,124.00 Per Review 17.16.050 Amended 06/10/2025 by Ord. 2025 - 34 Page 51 This page has intentionally been left blank Fixed Rate All Customers 5/8" - 3/4"$22.48 1"$28.57 1.5"$43.66 2"$61.85 3"$110.40 4"$164.95 6"$316.43 8"$498.28 10"$710.49 12"$1,036.26 Fire Lines per inch 2"$0.84 3"$1.68 4"$2.62 6"$5.23 8"$8.38 10"$12.04 12"$17.67 Volumetric Rates Residential (Up to 3 units, tier thresholds x unit) Block 1 (0-5 CCF)$2.84 $3.49 $4.46 $4.92 Non-Residential Summer $3.53 Winter $2.18 Multi-Family (4 or more units) Summer $3.35 Winter $2.18 Irrigation Up to target budget $2.93 $4.09 Over 300% of target $4.30 County Rates - Monthly Fixed Rate All Customers 5/8" - 3/4"$30.35 1"$38.57 1.5"$58.94 2"$83.50 3"$149.04 4"$222.69 6"$427.18 8"$672.67 10"$959.16 12"$1,398.95 Fire Lines per inch 2"$1.13 3"$2.27 4"$3.54 6"$7.06 8"$11.31 10"$16.25 12"$23.85 Volumetric Rates Residential (Up to 3 units, tier thresholds x unit) Block 1 (0-5 CCF)$3.83 $4.71 $6.02 $6.64 Non-Residential Summer $4.77 Winter $2.94 Multi-Family (4 or more units) Summer $4.52 Winter $2.94 Irrigation Up to target budget $3.96 $5.52 $5.81 This page has intentionally been left blank SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of ____ 2025 (Amendments to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule Related to Fire Line Fees) An ordinance amending fees and fee information in the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule related to certain fire line fees. WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011 the City Council adopted Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24 and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule has since been amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, it is now proposed that the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule be amended to include, eliminate, or otherwise modify fees and fee information regarding certain fire lines as shown in the attached Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds (i) the fees set forth in Exhibit A are necessary, reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service costs incurred by the City; and (ii) adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is, amended in pertinent part as set forth in the attached Exhibit “A”. SECTION 2. That a revised copy of the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule that reflects the amendments set forth in the attached Exhibit “A” shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website. SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective upon publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of _________, 2025. ______________________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: _________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on ____________________________. Mayor’s Action: _________ Approved. ____________ Vetoed. _______________________________________ MAYOR _________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _______ of 2025. Published: __________________ Approved As To Form By: ___________________________ Jaysen Oldroyd Date: _______9/3/2025___________ This page has intentionally been left blank CITY COUNCIL 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:Allison Rowland DATE:November 25, 2025 RE: INFORMATIONAL: WEST-EAST CONNECTIONS STUDY, PHASE 1 UPDATE ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program. Other funding partners for the work include the UTA, Salt Lake City’s General Fund, Salt Lake City Public Utilities (SLCPU), and the Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency (CRA). The Community Survey #1 Summary Report, the Foundation Report, the Problem Statement, and the draft Goals and Objectives for Phase 2. Goal of the briefing: Review and discuss Phase 1 of the Salt Lake City West-East Connections Study (now known as WE Connect) as the team prepares for the second phase of the project. Item Schedule: Page | 2 ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION A.Key Findings from the Community Survey #1 (pages 8 to 41 of the transmittal). This document provides the results of initial public outreach and a survey of 1,051 people who travel to, from, and within Westside communities. Completed in July 2025, the survey focused on the thoughts and personal experiences of the west-east divide reported by residents and interested non-residents. It was used to inform a “problem statement,” as well as draft Goals and Objectives, that will guide development of improvements. Some cautions, though, are in order—as the authors themselves acknowledge—in interpreting the survey results because of the limited responses from significant groups of people within Westside communities. Survey cautions: The following cautions in interpreting these survey results are acknowledged by survey authors: - Specifically, Latinos were underrepresented in the responses compared to their actual presence in the Westside. US Census data cited in the survey’s Summary Report indicates that close to half of residents (48%) are Hispanic or Latino, but only 11% of the survey respondents identified as such. Language does not appear to be the barrier, since the survey was available in English and in Spanish. The WE Connect project team does state clearly that it is redoubling its efforts to ensure that a more proportional number of Latinos is included in future project studies and activities, but the Council may wish to further discuss this issue (see Policy Question #2, in the final section of this staff report). It also should be noted that this problem is not a unique to this survey: Council staff has noted similar underrepresentation of Latinos in other surveys conducted by and about Salt Lake City and County over the past decade. - In addition, there also appears an underrepresentation of Westside residents in the survey for certain other important categories. For example, 72% of survey respondents are reported to be homeowners (page 14 of transmittal), but only about 54% of Westside residents own homes according to the Foundation Report (page 63). In addition, the Community Survey #1 Summary Report lists the shares of survey participants versus the Citywide population but does not refer to the Westside’s unique mix (see page 15 of the transmittal). For example, 35% of survey participants reported a household income below $75,000 but 50% of the City population is reported as below this level; comparisons with Westside household income levels do not seem to be mentioned in the transmittal. Since the surveys were open both to people who live in the Westside and people who live elsewhere, there may be value in separating these two types of respondents for interpretation. To try to account for these data constraints, the summary of key findings, below, focuses only on the responses of neighborhood residents. More information on the responses of non-residents is available in the transmittal. - 81% of residents cross the West-East divide either multiple times per day or daily. - Crossing the divide is essential for many activities, including work (63%), shopping or errands (63%), and recreation or social activities (63%). - 42% of residents reported experiencing delays when crossing the divide multiple times a day, or daily. - 48% reported they could not access the goods and services that they need on the Westside. The study team summarized that, in general, the initial rounds of public outreach and the responses in Community Survey #1 reflected “a broad sense of neglect and inequity in Westside neighborhoods, along with the need for expanded amenities.” The most important community goals were identified as: improved safety, improved access to goods and services, more pedestrian or bike-friendly crossings and new roadway connections. Page | 3 More specifically, survey respondents generally indicated: - A desire for more parks and trees; - Dissatisfaction with the lack of local economic development and business opportunities; - A strong interest in more restaurants, mixed-use zoning, and support for local businesses; - Support for near-term improvements, such as better lighting, crossing signals, and pedestrian refuge islands (like those being implemented in neighborhood byway routes) alongside longer- term strategies to reduce serious crashes and support active travel; and, - That they had not had a previous chance to participate in transportation decision making. B.The Foundation Report (pages 43 to 66 of the transmittal). This document is described as a snapshot of key trends shaping Salt Lake City and its Westside. It is designed to help residents and community leaders better understand current conditions and identify opportunities to strengthen connections between the Westside and the rest of the city. In broad terms, the findings of the Foundation Report, completed in August 2025, complement Community Survey #1 and confirm the notion that Salt Lake City’s urban divide, caused by I-15 and the railroad tracks, has mostly served as a detriment to the well-being of the people who live on the Westside. The Foundation Report summarizes the issue this way: “While the divide stems from transportation infrastructure, its impacts go beyond mobility. It has led to unequal investment, uneven resource allocation, and shaped how neighborhoods view themselves and each other. The Westside community disproportionately bears these burdens.” The Foundation Report concludes that patterns of limited housing variety, aging infrastructure and “disconnection among community assets” highlight the need for coordinated reinvestment in both housing and public infrastructure to ensure that Westside neighborhoods remain inclusive, vibrant, and resilient. Some additional specific findings are summarized below. 1.Demographics. The Westpoint, Rose Park, Jordan Meadows, Fairpark, Poplar Grove, and Glendale neighborhoods, taken together, are home to one of every four Salt Lake City residents, according to US Census data analyzed in the Foundation Report. This ratio dropped from one in every three residents between 2010 and 2024, as other areas of the City grew faster. Westside residents also live in larger households than the Citywide average, with more children and multigenerational families sharing the same home (though the Westside pattern does appear to be converging toward the norm in recent years). 2.Housing Stock. In spite of recent growth in large multifamily units on the Westside, over 60% of Westside residences are single-family detached homes, in contrast to 50% citywide. This pattern is reflected in the Westside’s lower-density residential pattern compared to many parts of the rest of Salt Lake City. These neighborhoods also experienced slower growth in housing units between 2010 and 2024, expanding by just under 12% (2,200 new units), while Salt Lake City’s housing units grew by more than 20%. 3.Westside Jobs. The Foundation Report states that only 6% of jobs located on the Westside are held by Westside residents; the other 94% commute out of the area for work. It also found that about one-third of jobs located in the area pay less than $40,000 per year. The study does not clarify whether these statistics differ from the patterns in other areas of the city, but the numbers cited do provide evidence of the centrality of the I-15/railroad track in many residents’ lives. With Page | 4 nearly 76,000 residents leaving Westside neighborhoods on a typical workday, the report states: “The historic development of Salt Lake City’s transportation systems has led to an undeniable reality: it is easier and more reliable for people to travel north to south than it is to move east to west. This “divide” impacts people traveling by all modes, shapes daily decisions about how and when to travel, and is a challenge for many businesses.” 1.Railroad Crossing Delays and Queues. Anyone familiar with the Westside knows about the problems related to train delays, limited safe crossings, and unpredictable travel times, including being late for work, school and appointments. To document the extent of commonly expressed complaints about the delays and queues caused by railroad crossings within the Westside, the study team reviewed video data from nine rail crossings over three consecutive weekdays in May 2025. Highlights of the findings can be found in the chart on page 52 of the transmittal, and are summarized below: The most frequent delays occur at the railroad crossings at 300 North (east of 500 West), 600 West (south of South Temple), 1700 South (east of 700 West), and 200 South (west of 600 West). At these locations, the average daily number of blockages ranged from 78 to 110. The highest cumulative wait times are at railroad crossings 600 West (south of South Temple), 200 South (west of 600 West), and 1700 South (east of 700 West). At these locations, the average total daily blockage time ranged from 2 hours 39 minutes to 8 hours 23 minutes. The maximum times observed for a single blockage ranged from almost 23 minutes to nearly 14 hours. Most blockages are caused by freight trains; Frontrunner-related gate closures average less than 60 seconds. In addition, the study points out that train-related delays affect all modes of travel, not just automobiles. It notes that train delays can be even more complex for people biking, walking and rolling (in wheelchairs, on skateboards and scooters, etc.), since lengthy detours to avoid the blockage can be more difficult or even impossible. Finally, the study acknowledges the usefulness of real-time information boards, which were added in recent years to 900 West and North Temple. These inform drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians of upcoming traffic interruptions caused by train crossings. They have proven so popular that Salt Lake City has begun to work with the Utah Inland Port Authority to expand the signage to five additional at-grade rail crossings, at 300 North, 200 South, 800 South, 900 South, and 1700 South. 2.Other Barriers. The study found that missing or insufficient sidewalks on some of the viaducts over the railways and interstate are another barrier to walking and wheelchair use. It identified the sidewalks at 600 North, 400 South, and 2100 South as especially problematic. Uncomfortable and poorly lit interstate underpasses were also identified as a concern. In addition, residents with accessibility needs are especially poorly served by “the presence of long and steep viaducts, missing and insufficient sidewalks, and a lack of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) features can make barriers impenetrable.” 3.Public Transit. The Foundation Report notes that while Salt Lake City’s public transit system is improving, the Westside still lacks direct and frequent connections to major destinations on the Eastside. This means longer travel times for Westside passengers to reach key city resources by Page | 5 public transit. Also, transit frequency often fluctuates in the evenings and on weekends, which further limits residents’ ability to access frequent, reliable transit service. The study team points out that the west-east divide is partly to blame, since some of these service gaps are caused by UTA’s prohibition against buses using at-grade rail crossings (page 51). Another problematic aspect of public transit in Westside neighborhoods is with transit stops. Most are lighted but some lack benches (25%) and there are very few with shelters from the weather (85%), particularly along important corridors like North Redwood Road. Still, the study notes that since 2019, UTA has made significant improvements to transit service in Westside neighborhoods, and its Five-Year Service Plan and Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) “aim to continue increasing the span and frequency of transit service for Westside residents.” In the meantime, Salt Lake City has funded UTA On Demand service on the Westside for the past several years, along with new Westside routes as part of the Frequent Service Network. 4.Health and Safety. The Foundation Report notes that Westside residents may be disproportionately exposed to some important health and safety concerns. Key among these is the UDOT Zero Fatalities study that found that 77% of fatal automobile crashes in Salt Lake City take place on the Westside (page 60 of the transmittal). In addition, the City’s own 2023 Connect SLC Transportation Plan found that over 70% of serious vehicle crashes take place on just 10% of streets, many of them in Westside neighborhoods. To make matters still worse, emergency responders are slowed down by the same east-west barriers that affect all the other vehicles travelling to or through the Westside, leading to additional service delays and the need for administrators to juggle available resources to cover for these delays. Many respondents to Community Survey #1 also noted transportation safety concerns, ranging from bicyclers who observe aggressive driving provoked by frustration over train blockages, to the lack of driver understanding of confusing intersections, and the maintenance and conditions of existing bike lanes. Pedestrians are worried about their crossing when intersections and walking in underpasses, as well as the combination of automobile traffic and trains which causes blockages at key crossings. The study also refers to a report by the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Technical Assistance Services for Communities (TASC) program called the Westside Neighborhoods - Environmental Justice and Air Quality Assessment, which found “major disparities in air quality, health, and socioeconomic conditions in the six Westside neighborhoods. These areas experience some of the worst environmental impacts in the city—and in some cases, the state. Future development should be planned with care to avoid adding further burdens, with impacts evaluated, mitigated, and monitored over time.” Another study, from the City’s Transportation Division, found that “Those living near I-15 and the rail corridor face persistent environmental stress. This is compounded by limited tree canopy, high heat exposure, and scarce access to quality open space.” The research team also pointed out that the City and community organizations have already begun to address many safety problems related to transportation and fatal and serious injury crashes have decreased on corridors where improvements have been installed. These efforts include redesigning streets to calm traffic, installing Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) Signals, and enhancing lighting and crossings. These efforts have resulted in reduced crash severity and improved safety outcomes across the Westside (see page 61 of the transmittal). Page | 6 B.The Problem Statement (pages 68 t0 72 of the transmittal). The study’s four-part problem statement (below) will be used to evaluate and screen solutions in Phase 2 of the project. It is based on results of public comments, the Community Survey, and conversations with key stakeholders, as well as previous plans and studies, plus the information gathered in the Foundation Report. Demographics and Workforce: People living on the Westside face more challenges getting to jobs, schools, and training because of barriers like I-15 and train tracks. These barriers make it harder for them to access opportunities within their community. Transportation and Mobility: Getting around Salt Lake City from west to east is hard. Train tracks and I-15 block the way, and there aren’t enough good options for people walking, riding a bicycle, or taking transit. Health and Safety: Westside neighborhoods face more health and safety problems, like bad air, dangerous crossings, and poor access to care. These issues make life harder and less healthy. Housing and Public Services: Westside neighborhoods offer fewer housing options and have seen less investment in public and private spaces over time. These challenges can make it harder for residents to thrive and take full pride in their surroundings, despite the strong sense of community that exists. Draft Goals and Objectives for Phase 2. The study team chose four “planning themes” based on the first round of research with the community: Travel Choice; Health and Wellness; Access to Opportunity; and Community Vibrancy (pages 74 to 77 of the transmittal and summarized below). These four themes are the basis for four study Goals, listed below, each with a variable number of related Objectives. This structure will direct the data collection efforts in later phases of the study by helping identify both community concerns and data-driven challenges. They also will play a crucial role in screening and prioritizing potential solutions. Travel Choices. Goal: Enhance access to essential services and destinations by strengthening all travel options, improving safety, and reducing disruptions and unpredictability. Theme - Health and Wellness Goal: Reduce the negative health and wellness impacts of transportation infrastructure. Page | 7 Theme - Access to Opportunity Goal: Promote economic and workforce opportunities through transportation. - Stabilize and promote local businesses; - Leverage infrastructure to catalyze economic development; - Expand opportunities for education, job training, and social services. Theme – Community Vibrancy Goal: Encourage housing options and public spaces that promote and support the community. - Expand quality affordable and attainable housing options; - Ensure convenient access to public spaces and community services; - Establish integrated activity centers that improve quality and availability of social, cultural, and community spaces. D.Next Steps. Plans for Phase 2 of the WE Connect Study include: - Asking “the general public” what they think would help heal the West-East divide, focusing on communities that are adjacent to the railroads and freeway. - Analysis by the study team of the effectiveness of solutions proposed by the public to problems related to the west-east divide, focusing primarily on infrastructure and including any second- order impacts they might carry, as well as how difficult they would be to implement. - Narrowing down proposed solutions to a final proposal that the Community Advisory Board feels has a good chance of success and could be implemented within the available timeline. - Creating an implementation package for the proposed solutions that identifies likely funding sources and potential hurdles. E.Timeline February to December 2025 Define the Problem: Community engagement; Foundation report; Existing conditions December 2025 to August 26 Develop Ideas: Co-create solutions; Screening analysis August 2026 to January 2027 Prioritize Solutions: Feasibility analysis; Prioritize solutions January to February 2027 Action Plan: Map to Realization COUNCIL POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to confirm whether some final version of the plan will come before the Council for adoption, which will clarify where the elected officials at the time stand in terms of prioritized solution and interest level in funding (even if aspirational). 2. The Council may wish to ask how the Transportation Division plans to work with other City departments whose areas of expertise overlap with topics of this study (like the Departments of Economic Development, Public Services, etc.). Page | 8 3. Would the Council like to discuss with the study team how it might be able to improve the representation of Westside residents in planned future surveys? City Council Update Fall 2025 What Who ›Community Advisory Board›Technical Advisory Committee›Art Engagement Group›You! What We Heard ›From May 2-June 20, 2025, we asked the community to tell us about their experience with the west-east divide. How Key Findings: Transportation Travel Choice •Barriers:I-15 and rail lines limit west–east movement; few grade-separated crossings exist.•Congestion & Reliability:Some corridors (e.g., 900 West, 800 South, 1700 South) experience frequent delays due to rail blockages; delays are unpredictable and impact all travel modes.•Transit:While frequent transit service exists on some corridors, gaps remain, especially in northern and southern Westside neighborhoods. Planned improvements (UTA LRTP) will expand service and frequency by 2050.•Active Transportation:Most streets are low-stress for walking/biking, but key crossings are uncomfortable or unreliable. Few low-stress west–east connections exist, especially south of 900 S.•Freight:Truck and freight movement is concentrated on grade-separated routes, with increasing volumes expected as the region grows.•Vehicle Safety:Redwood Road and 900 West are crash hotspots; intersection safety is a major concern. Major Findings Health and Wellness •Air Quality & Pollution: Westside neighborhoods are exposed to higher levels of air pollution.•Healthcare Access: Limited facilities west of I-15; residents travel farther for care. A new hospital in West Valley City (opening 2028–2029) will improve access; 1 in 4 Westside residents lack health insurance.•Personal Security: Perceived safety is lower in Westside neighborhoods, especially for walking and using trails. Lighting and crime concerns persist.•Initiatives: Programs like the Utah Department of Environmental Quality WestSide AirSense7 aim to improve data gathering on westside air quality and health. Major Findings Access to Opportunity •Education: While there is significant coverage for elementary and secondary education on the Westside, there is no public high school or university. With the exception of one charter school, all students in the 9th grade or above must cross the divide to go to school.•Employment: Jobs are concentrated in transportation, warehousing, and manufacturing, but most residents commute elsewhere. Westside unemployment is higher than city and state averages.•Commercial Real Estate: High demand and rising rents may challenge small businesses. •Growth & Development: Major projects (Power District, Utah Inland Port, Homeless Services Campus, RE:IMAGINE Downtown SLC, Rio Grande District) will increase demand for improved connections and services.•Plans: Workforce development and regional transportation plans target improved access to jobs and services on the Westside. Major Findings Community Vibrancy •Housing: Westside has more single-family homes and higher ownership rates, but less housing diversity. Many residents are cost-burdened despite lower prices.•Amenities: Parks, schools, libraries, and grocery stores are unevenly distributed; some neighborhoods lack easy access to daily needs.•Food Access: Grocery stores are concentrated on transit corridors; food insecurity and lack of culturally relevant markets are issues.•Walkshed Analysis: Most residents live within walking distance of multiple amenities, but gaps remain in Glendale, Rose Park, and industrial areas. Major Findings Next Steps ›Brainstorm solutions ›Develop solutions evaluation criteria ›Prioritize solutions that solve for these themes What You Can Do ›Sign up for email updates ›Share ideas about how to get your community engaged ›Participate in early 2026 activities Questions? westeastconnections@slc.gov slc.gov/transportation/west- east-connections/ 385-360-5673 Scan the QR code to visit the project website! SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 10/15/2025 Date Sent to Council: 10/22/2025 From: Department * Community and Neighborhood Employee Name: Lyons, Amy E-mail amy.lyons@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 10/15/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 10/22/2025 Subject: West-East Connections Study Additional Staff Contact: Joe Taylor - joe.taylor@slc.govHeather Mclaughlin-Kolb - heather.mclaughlin-kolb@slc.gov Presenters/Staff Table Joe Taylor - joe.taylor@slc.govJulianne Sabula - julianne.sabula@slc.gov Document Type Information Item Budget Impact? Yes No Recommendation: Salt Lake City’s WE Connect Study has undertaken its first phase of work and is preparing to solicit solutions to the west-east divide from the general public. The project team feels this is an appropriate time to update the City Council. Background/Discussion See first attachment for Background/Discussion Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?* Yes No Public Process PUBLIC PROCESS: The WE Connect Study has hosted one formal open house and conducted one survey so far, with over 200 attendees and 1400 responses, respectively. The events were advertised with 27,500 postcards and 50 road signs at or around the divide, through our partner organizations, emails subscription list and via social media. Notices to all community councils were given at project kickoff. In-person or virtual presentations to community councils within the study area were given at the project outset and scheduled for an update in November of 2025. In addition to these traditional outreach methods, the WE Connect Study convened a Community Advisory Board (CAB) of paid representatives from each of the neighborhoods in the study area. The CAB has been central in all subsequent engagement work and will be central in the solicitation and screening of solutions to the divide. In addition to the CAB, an artists’ council of six local artists or arts groups has been formed to work in conjunction with the CAB in all future engagement work. Central to the focus of the WE Connect Study is the notion that transportation infrastructure delivery has historically underperformed in the engagement of many of our communities. While no single engagement method has been identified as a solution to this disparity, our evolving public engagement process continually attempts to reach populations that are not currently enfranchised in the public process, and build trust with those groups where trust in government is lacking. This page has intentionally been left blank ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Tammy Hunsaker Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City’s West-East Divide Study, under the Federal Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program, now called the WE Connect Study, has undertaken its first phase of work and is preparing to solicit solutions to the west-east divide from the general public. The project team feels this is an appropriate time to update the City Council regarding the following. A) The public process up to this point B) The technical- and engagement-focused materials prepared to define and clarify the problem of the west-east divide C) The process to seek and select solutions to the west-east divide to put forward in the study PUBLIC PROCESS: The WE Connect Study has hosted one formal open house and conducted one survey so far, with over 200 attendees and 1400 responses, respectively. The events were advertised with 27,500 postcards and 50 road signs at or around the divide, through our partner organizations, emails subscription list and via social media. Notices to all community councils were given at project kickoff. In-person or virtual presentations to community councils within the study area were given at the project outset and scheduled for an update in November of 2025. In addition to these traditional outreach methods, the WE Connect Study convened a Community Advisory Board (CAB) of paid representatives from each of the neighborhoods in the study area. The CAB has been central in all subsequent engagement work and will be central in the solicitation and screening of solutions to the divide. In addition to the CAB, an artists’ council of six local artists or arts groups has been formed to work in conjunction with the CAB in all future engagement work. Central to the focus of the WE Connect Study is the notion that transportation infrastructure delivery has historically underperformed in the engagement of many of our communities. While no single engagement method has been identified as a solution to this disparity, our evolving public engagement process continually attempts to reach populations that are not currently enfranchised in the public process, and build trust with those groups where trust in government is lacking. EXHIBITS: The attached exhibits provide further detail on item A and information on items B and C [specify which exhibits address which of the items listed above, if possible, and briefly summarize how their content updates Council on those items]. 1) Project Chronology 2) Community Survey Summary Report 3) Foundations Report 4) Problem Statement 5) Goals and Objectives This page has intentionally been left blank This page has intentionally been left blank Community Survey #1 Summary Report 2 Community Survey #1 Summary Report Community Survey #1 Summary Report Prepared For: Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake City Transportation Division 349 South 200 East Suite 150 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Prepared By: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 111 East Broadway Suite 600 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 385-212-3176 Statutory notice: 23 U.S.C. § 407: US Code - Section 407: Discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and surveys Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144 and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data. 3 Community Survey #1 Summary Report CONTENTS 1. Survey Background ............................................................................................................. 6 1.1. Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 6 1.2. Who participated ........................................................................................................ 7 2. What we heard ...................................................................................................................10 2.1. Travel patterns ...........................................................................................................10 2.1.1. Crossing the divide ............................................................................................10 2.1.2. Delays and disruptions .......................................................................................12 2.1.3. Preferred crossings ............................................................................................13 2.1.4. Preferred modes ................................................................................................14 2.2. Access to goods and services ...................................................................................15 2.3. Impact and experiences crossing the divide ..............................................................18 2.3.1. Choices ..............................................................................................................18 2.3.2. Impact on life, family and community .................................................................20 2.3.3. Experiences walking, riding your bike, or using transit. ......................................21 2.3.4. Experiences crossing I-15 and/or the railroads at existing crossing locations. ....23 2.4. Study goals ................................................................................................................24 2.5. Past participation and perception ...............................................................................25 3. Demographic Profile ..........................................................................................................27 3.1. Neighborhood ............................................................................................................27 3.2. ZIP Code ...................................................................................................................28 3.3. Age ............................................................................................................................29 3.4. Race/Ethnicity............................................................................................................30 3.5. Gender ......................................................................................................................31 3.6. Income ......................................................................................................................32 3.7. Disabiltiy ...................................................................................................................33 3.8. Housing .....................................................................................................................34 4 Community Survey #1 Summary Report List of Figures Figure 1 - Participation by SLC ZIP codes .................................................................................. 9 Figure 2 - Study focus neighborhoods ........................................................................................ 9 Figure 3 - Travel patterns ..........................................................................................................10 Figure 4 - Motivation for travel ...................................................................................................11 Figure 5 - Delays and disruptions ..............................................................................................12 Figure 6 - Preferred crossings ...................................................................................................13 Figure 7 - Preferred modes .......................................................................................................14 Figure 8 - Goods and services ..................................................................................................15 Figure 9 - Travel to other neighborhoods ..................................................................................16 Figure 10 - Travel choices .........................................................................................................18 Figure 11 - Study goals .............................................................................................................24 Figure 12 – Representation in planning efforts ..........................................................................25 Figure 13 - Past study participation ...........................................................................................26 Figure 14 - Demographics, Neighborhood .................................................................................27 Figure 15 Demographics, ZIP code ..........................................................................................28 Figure 16 - Demographics, Age ................................................................................................29 Figure 17 - Demographics, Race/ethnicity ................................................................................30 Figure 18 - Demographics, Gender ...........................................................................................31 Figure 19 - Demographics, Income ...........................................................................................32 Figure 20 - Demographics, Disability .........................................................................................33 Figure 21 - Demographics, Housing ..........................................................................................34 5 Community Survey #1 Summary Report List of Tables Table 1 - Demographic characteristics ....................................................................................... 8 Table 2 - Neighborhoods within study area ................................................................................ 9 Table 3 - Frequently mentioned neighborhoods ........................................................................17 Table 4 Travel choice key themes .............................................................................................19 Table 5 Key themes describing impact of the divide ..................................................................20 Table 6 Pedestrian and cyclist experiences ..............................................................................21 Table 7 Experiences crossing the divide ...................................................................................23 Appendix Appendix A: Full Survey Results ……………………………….……………………………………………………………………………35 6 Community Survey #1 Summary Report 1. SURVEY BACKGROUND Salt Lake City has begun the West-East Connections (WEConnect) Study to evaluate transportation needs and identify potential solutions to improve west-east connectivity for people driving, walking, bicycling, and using public transit across the divide caused by I-15 and the railroad tracks. This survey is the first of several input opportunities planned throughout the study. The intent of this engagement opportunity was to learn more about the real impacts of the west-east divide on those who travel to, from and within westside communities. The survey is intended to inform a larger conversation and contribute to the development of the problem statement that will guide the solutions development in later phases. A total of 1,051 individuals participated in the survey. 1,028 surveys were completed online, and 23 surveys were completed on paper during the open house event on May 21, 2025. Salt Lake City used a variety of methods to advertise the survey, including posting flyers at community spaces around the westside, an email to the project contact list, social media on SLC Moves and through City and Community Council pages and newsletters, press release, yard signs placed at crossing locations around the westside and 27,600 postcard mailers delivered around the project area. The survey was also publicized by Community Advisory Board (CAB) members and in several media articles. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. 1,020 surveys were submitted in English and 31 submitted in Spanish. 1.1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Survey data aligns with key findings from the Foundations Report [link] and added nuance as to the respective impacts on quality of life for study area residents. There was not a significant difference in input gained from respondents living in the study area versus other respondents. Travel Delay: Of the 67% of respondents that indicated they live in the study area, 81% cross the divide either multiple times per day or daily for activities such as work (63%), shopping or errands (63%) and recreation or social activities (63%). 71% of respondents indicated that their travel is delayed multiple times per day, daily, or weekly Access: Respondents reported feeling dissatisfied with services and amenities on the westside, and many report traveling for quality food, better shopping, health care and recreation. Of the respondents who indicated they live in a neighborhood within the study area, 48% reported they could not access the goods and services that they need and specifically reported a lack of restaurants, retail shops, and services on the westside, as well as the poor quality of area grocery stores. Some respondents reported crossing to downtown, but 13 other locations were listed where respondents travel to meet their daily needs, including three outside of Salt Lake City. Housing: Some respondents shared they choose to live on the westside because of community ties, while many reported living on the westside because of the affordability of housing, despite the transportation challenges. Several free response comments indicate that people were unaware of the impacts of the divide before moving to the 7 Community Survey #1 Summary Report westside while several others indicated that people moved out of the area because of those impacts. Travel Choices: Respondents prefer grade-separated crossings and use the following to avoid delay: 1300 South (52%), 400 South (51%), North Temple (50%), 900 South (47%) and 800 South (45%). Most respondents (92%) reported using a personal vehicle to get around. 48% reported using some kind of public transit and 38% reported that they walk. Many free responses indicated that people would bike or walk more if delays did not occur or were more predictable, grade- separated crossings were more comfortable, and detours were not as long. Overall Impact: Residents on the westside report feeling that the divide has a negative impact on their daily lives ranging from travel delays and being late for work, school and appointments to feeling disconnected from the rest of the city. Overall, quality of life on the westside is negatively impacted due to these daily inconveniences, loss of time, disruption of routine, lack of amenities, safe crossings, slower emergency response times, and poorer air quality. 1.2. WHO PARTICIPATED Most survey participants (73%) reported being between the ages of 25 to 50. More than half (66%) of participants reported earning an annual household income of $60,000 or higher. 76% of respondents identify as white and 47% identify as male. 84% of participants do not identify as a person with a disability. Most survey participants (72%) identified as a homeowner. The following table summarizes the demographic characteristics of the respondents that may be underrepresented relative to the city’s population composition1. For detailed information about the participant demographics, see Section 3, Demographic Profile. 1 Source: American Community Survey 2024 “… choices are far more desirable on the other side of the tracks. It's almost like we're "stuck" with what's offered on the west and south sides. Much like a "take it or leave it" situation. While we can find what we need, why should our neighborhood have to settle for less-than appealing options.” 8 Community Survey #1 Summary Report Characteristics Citywide population (217,783) (1,051) Under 18 years old 17% 0.9% Over the age of 60 16.8% 9.74% Live with a disability 12.1% 10% Hispanic or Latina/o/e 20.8% 11% Black or African American 2.7% Asian or Asian American 5.4% 3% Pacific Islander 1.4% 1% Native American 1.2% Annual household income is less than $75,000 50.1% 35.2% Table 1 - Demographic characteristics Of the 743 survey participants that shared their ZIP code, 67% (498 participants) said they live within the study area (within ZIP Codes 84101, 84103, 84104, 84115, 84116). 9 Community Survey #1 Summary Report Of the 768 survey participants that shared the neighborhood they live in, 411 reported living in a focus neighborhood identified for the study. Of those responses, the majority of responses were submitted from participants living in Rose Park, Poplar Grove, and Glendale. Neighborhood responses Westpointe 18 Rose Park 103 Jordan Meadows 7 Table 2 - Neighborhoods within study area Figure 1 - Participation by SLC ZIP codes Figure 2 - Study focus neighborhoods 10 Community Survey #1 Summary Report 2. W HAT WE HEARD The following section summarizes the survey feedback received. Responses included both multiple choice and open-ended questions. 2.1. TRAVEL PATTERNS Some survey questions were designed to get a better idea of how often respondents cross the divide, the modes they use and preferred crossings. 2.1.1. Crossing the divide Figure 3 - Travel patterns 1,042 responses Most respondents (over 63% combined) cross the divide either multiple times per day or daily. 20% of respondents reported crossing the west-east side divide at least once a week. Of the respondents who indicated they live in a neighborhood within the study area, 81% cross the divide either multiple times per day or daily. 11 Community Survey #1 Summary Report 1,038 responses Responses indicated that crossing the divide is essential for many activities, such as work (63%), shopping or errands (63%) and recreation or social activities (63%). Other responses included: visiting family, church, getting to the airport, getting to public transit, accessing “better” options. Figure 4 - Motivation for travel 12 Community Survey #1 Summary Report 2.1.2. Delays and disruptions Figure 5 - Delays and disruptions 1,039 responses Respondents reported that they often delayed when crossing the divide. Many respondents reported experiencing delays multiple times a day or daily (36%) and weekly (35%). Of the respondents who indicated they live in a neighborhood within the study area, 42% reported experiencing delays multiple times a day or daily. 13 Community Survey #1 Summary Report 2.1.3. Preferred crossings 810 responses Four of the five most frequently used crossings are grade separated (bridges that travel above the rails instead of crossing them). They are North Temple (48%), 400 South (44%), 1300 South (44%), 900 South (41%) and 600 North (36%). Of the respondents who indicated they live in a neighborhood within the study area, three of the five most frequently used crossings are grade separated. They are 1300 South (52%), 400 South (51%), North Temple (50%), 900 South (47%) and 800 South (45%). Figure 6 - Preferred crossings 14 Community Survey #1 Summary Report 2.1.4. Preferred modes Figure 7 - Preferred modes 821 responses Most respondents (92%) reported using a personal vehicle to get around. 55% of respondents indicated they use some kind of public transit (TRAX, Bus, FrontRunner or Paratransit). 39 % of respondents reported using a personal bicycle and 36% reported that they walk. Of the respondents who indicated they live in a neighborhood within the study area, most reported using a personal vehicle to get around (92%). 48% reported using some kind of public transit and 38% reported that they walk. 15 Community Survey #1 Summary Report 2.2. ACCESS TO GOODS AND SERVICES Some survey questions aimed to assess the perception about the availability and suitability of goods and services on the westside. Figure 8 - Goods and services 1,031 responses 39% of respondents felt they could not access the goods and services they need on the west side. Of the respondents who indicated they live in a neighborhood within the study area, 48% reported they could not access the goods and services that they need. Some of the additional feedback includes: Residents report frequently needing to cross train tracks, often facing delays or unpredictable travel time due to train stops. Respondents noted that they need to cross the divide to access common necessities such as grocery stores, pharmacies, dining options, and quality produce. Many respondents noted that even if they are near a grocery store, they travel elsewhere to get better quality food. Respondents reported a lack of restaurants, retail shops, and services on the westside. 16 Community Survey #1 Summary Report “I can easily access some goods and services, but want to be able to easily access multiple areas of the city” “The goods and services in my neighborhood are a victim of historic redlining so my answer to you would be what goods and services” “Most of the time, yes. If I have time sensitive appointments sometimes it is safer to drive than to bike” Respondents who shared they are not able to access the goods and services they need in their neighborhood were asked to share the neighborhoods to which they travel. Figure 9 - Travel to other neighborhoods 280 responses Respondents reported feeling dissatisfied with services and amenities on the westside, and many report traveling for better shopping, health care and recreation. Many respondents felt there is a gap in the quality and access to amenities on the westside compared to the eastside, particularly grocery stores and restaurants. 17 Community Survey #1 Summary Report Frequently mentioned neighborhoods are summarized in Table 2-1. Neighborhood Mentions Reasons for travel Downtown Rose Park options Sugar House Glendale Poplar Grove Poplar Grove Glendale Marmalade recreation West Valley Liberty Wells University of Utah Millcreek Ballpark Midvale Cottonwood shopping Davis County recreation, medical appointments Table 3 - Frequently mentioned neighborhoods “I live in Rose Park, which I love, but most of the restaurants, cafes, grocery stores I frequent are on the east side.” “We have no where to buy make up. I have to get to a drug store or City Creek. Our grocery stores suck.” “Live in poplar grove and there aren’t many gyms on this side of town. I cross to go to the gym multiple times a week and have been late to a class because of it.” 18 Community Survey #1 Summary Report 2.3. IMPACT AND EXPERIENCES CROSSING THE DIVIDE Some survey questions were designed to gain insight into the lived experiences of westside residents crossing the westside. These questions aimed to understand how it changes behavior, choices and understand the overall impact on quality of life. 2.3.1. Choices Figure 10 - Travel choices 1,031 responses 126 respondents submitted an open-ended comment on this question. Table 2-2 describes common themes identified from the responses. 19 Community Survey #1 Summary Report Key theme Number of mentions Transportation Barriers 32 Experiences with long delays at crossings and time spent rerouting which alter choices. because of community ties, despite the challenges. because of the affordability of housing, despite the transportation challenges. opportunities and recreation in other parts of the city. parts of the city for a better quality of life. Table 4 Travel choice key themes “Yes I avoid going down certain streets because of the train.” “We do most of our shopping on the East side.” “My choice of living was limited to the availability of affordable housing…” “We chose to live on the west side because we love the community.” “Chose to live in Sugarhouse so my daily life isn’t spent interacting with the divide.” 20 Community Survey #1 Summary Report 2.3.2. Impact on life, family and community 728 responses Residents on the westside report feeling that the divide has an impact on their daily lives. Table 2-3 describes common themes identified from the responses: Theme Number of Mentions Description Transportation Barriers and unpredictable travel times, being late for work, school and appointments. Community Division and Isolation of the city, having a lack of amenities and gathering spaces. Economic Impacts attracting customers due to transportation barriers reduced economic opportunities. Social Impacts events, limited social and recreation activities. Health and Safety cyclist and pedestrian safety, poor infrastructure, and slower response times for emergency services, Overall Impact on Daily Life time, emotional toll due the unproductivity, and disruption of routines. Table 5 Key themes describing impact of the divide “Huge traffic delays leading to more time in my car and away from my family.” “There is less community in the west side because there are not many places to gather or meet.” “Limits the safety and viability of starting a family anywhere near I-15…” “Deprived connections, reduced economic prosperity for the city…” “There are 27 ways to enter or leave Rose Park. 3 don't require a crossing of a freeway overpass or freight rail line.” 21 Community Survey #1 Summary Report 2.3.3. Experiences walking, riding your bike, or using transit. 689 responses Respondents cited long delays caused by stopped trains, unsafe and poorly maintained crossings, and limited alternative routes, especially for pedestrians and cyclists. Locations like the 9-Line and 300 N were identified as useful crossings, while 800 South and 900 West were repeatedly criticized for being unreliable and hazardous. Table 2-4 summarized the key locations identified in the responses for experiences for pedestrian and cyclists. Location Number of Mentions Description 300 N experience delays and congestion. 1300 S respondents report heavy traffic and confusing intersections. 600 N poor lighting, speeding cars, and debris. 400 S 800 S 900 S blockages and unpredictable delays. North Temple pedestrians and cyclists. 900 W 1700 S 9-Line Table 6 Pedestrian and cyclist experiences “Rough, when on my bike there’s no way I am going over 600N, North Temple, 400S or 1300S. Those viaducts are too dangerous for cyclists” 22 Community Survey #1 Summary Report “I do not bike in this area because of the lack of safe crossings over I-15 and the railroad tracks where I need them to be.” “I have waited for 30 minutes trying to bike across the train tracks on a stopped train. I have about a 25/75 chance of getting stuck behind a train.” “I only use my car!” 23 Community Survey #1 Summary Report 2.3.4. Experiences crossing I-15 and/or the railroads at existing crossing locations. 681 responses Respondents often mentioned long and unpredictable delays, missing appointments, safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists, limited alternate routes, traffic congestion. Respondents report that they would like more under and overpasses, real-time updates, and expanded public transit. Table 2-5 summarizes the experiences shared about the experiences of respondents crossing the divide. Location Number of Mentions 82 I-15 crossing mentioned frequently at different locations. Commonly cited frequent delays, congestion, noise, pollution, unsafe crossings, and limited pedestrian access. North Temple concerns for pedestrians and cyclists. 1300 S experiences with accessibility. 600 N pedestrians feel unsafe. 800 S blockages. 400 S congestion. 300 N bridge. 900 S or 400 S. 900 W routes. Table 7 Experiences crossing the divide “I am frequently late to my weekly shift on the westside due to trains at the crossing on 800 South.” “Better to drive a bit longer/further to ensure I don't get stuck at that train.” 24 Community Survey #1 Summary Report “There are few easily-accessible alternatives during high traffic congestion times.” “1300 S is the only reasonable crossing, but it gets problematic because it has to carry all the load.” 2.4. STUDY GOALS Participants were asked to identify the goals they feel the project team should prioritize as part of the study. 845 responses Improved travel time, and fewer delays at railroad crossings was the most important goal for respondents. New roadway connections, improved safety, improved public transit and more pedestrian or bike-friendly crossings were of similar importance for respondents. Other goals identified by respondents included aesthetic improvements, emergency services response times, better maintenance, support for the Rio Grande Plan, clear notifications/signage of current train delays. Improved travel time, and fewer delays at railroad crossings was the most important goal to respondents who reported living within the study area. Figure 11 - Study goals 25 Community Survey #1 Summary Report Improved safety, improved access to goods and services, more pedestrian or bike- friendly crossings and new roadway connections were the most important goals for respondents who reported living within the study area. 2.5. PAST PARTICIPATION AND PERCEPTION Some survey questions were designed to gauge if the respondents have participated in planning studies in the past and understand if they feel they are represented in the subsequent decisions. 824 responses Only 13% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the statement “I feel I have had a chance to participate in transportation decision making in the past.” o 14% of respondents who reported living within the study area strongly agreed or agreed with that statement. Most respondents, both within the study area and the wider area indicated they did not feel they have had a chance to participate in transportation decision making. Figure 12 – Representation in planning efforts 26 Community Survey #1 Summary Report Several survey questions aimed to understand if participants have participated in planning studies in the past and if they felt their input what used. Figure 13 - Past study participation 824 responses 76% of respondents indicated they have not participated in a Salt Lake City planning study before. Most respondents, both within the study area (75%) and the wider area (76%) indicated they have not participated in a planning study before. Of the 22% of respondents that indicated they have participated in a planning study in the past, most participated in the Citywide Transportation Plan (45%) or 600/700 North Mobility, Safety, and Transit Improvements (37%). Of that group who has participated in a planning study, only 20% reported feeling that their perspective is reflected in major transportation decisions. For additional detail about the past participation and perception, refer to the complete data report in Appendix A. 27 Community Survey #1 Summary Report 3. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE This survey included several optional demographic questions that were intended to help Salt Lake City better understand who was participating in the study. This section summarizes the self-reported demographic data from the survey responses. 3.1. NEIGHBORHOOD Figure 14 - Demographics, Neighborhood 768 responses Other SLC Neighborhoods frequently identified: Sugarhouse, Liberty Wells, Marmalade, Millcreek, West Valley, West Jordan 28 Community Survey #1 Summary Report 3.2. ZIP CODE Figure 15 Demographics, ZIP code 743 responses Most frequently represented postal codes 84104: 206 84116: 200 Other notable postal codes 84101: 29 84103: 37 84115: 26 84105:32 29 Community Survey #1 Summary Report 3.3. AGE Figure 16 - Demographics, Age 780 responses 30 Community Survey #1 Summary Report 3.4. RACE/ETHNICITY Figure 17 - Demographics, Race/ethnicity 771 responses 27 respondents selected multiple options 31 Community Survey #1 Summary Report 3.5. GENDER Figure 18 - Demographics, Gender 770 responses 32 Community Survey #1 Summary Report 3.6. INCOME Figure 19 - Demographics, Income 729 responses 33 Community Survey #1 Summary Report 3.7. DISABILTIY Figure 20 - Demographics, Disability 770 responses 34 Community Survey #1 Summary Report 3.8. H OUSING Figure 21 - Demographics, Housing 771 responses 14 “other” responses indicated they live with a relative (parents, child or other family member). This page has intentionally been left blank SLC West East CONNECTIONS FOUNDATION REPORT August 20, 2025 SLC West East CONNECTIONS 32 INTRODUCTION August 2025 WHAT IS THE WE CONNECT STUDY? WE Connect (West-East Connections Study) Salt Lake City (SLC) is physically divided by major regional transportation infrastructure including, Interstate 15 (I-15), the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), and Utah Transit Authority’s (UTA) FrontRunner commuter rail, creating barriers to west-east connectivity. These corridors inhibit access between Westside neighborhoods and eastern areas like downtown, affecting travel times, community cohesion, and public safety. For many Westside residents, limited crossings and frequent delays caused by slowed or parked trains make daily travel difficult—especially for those walking or biking. While the divide stems from transportation infrastructure, its impacts go beyond mobility. It has led to unequal investment, uneven resource allocation, and shaped how neighborhoods view themselves and each other. The Westside community disproportionately bears these burdens. The WE Connect Study, funded by the US Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program, aims to work alongside the community to identify issues, co-create solutions, and prioritize improvements grounded by lived experiences to address the “divide”. HOW DID WE GET HERE? THE FOUNDATION REPORT IS... Because the Westside experiences many of the divide’s most significant impacts, this Foundation Report provides a snapshot of key trends shaping Salt Lake City and its Westside. It is designed to help residents and community leaders better understand current conditions and identify opportunities to strengthen connections between the Westside and the rest of the city. While it doesn’t cover every statistic or perspective, this docuent lays important groundwork as we work together to envision a more connected future. WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED AND WHAT WE HAVE HEARD Four key focus areas capture our initial findings and community input gathered throughout the study so far. These focus areas highlight major challenges and future opportunities, guiding an approach that balances community aspirations with identified needs. Together, they aim to strengthen neighborhoods, enhance health and safety, and expand access citywide. WHO WE ARE Demographics and Workforce OUR WELLBEING Health and Safety HOW WE MOVE Transportation OUR COMMUNITY Housing and Public Services A spur of the Transcontinental Railroad was constructed, setting the rail pathway that is in place today. Rapid railway expansion supported industrial growth; by 1910, there were three parallel railroad tracks running in the pathway of 300 West. I-15 was constructed, removing several blocks of historic gridded neighborhood streets, homes, and businesses in SLC. UDOT released the final Environmental Impact Study (EIS) to widen I-15 from 400 South in SLC to Farmington. The department settled on “five general- purpose lanes and one express lane in each direction” of the freeway. The plan also includes safer pedestrian and bicycle crossings. SLC’s original 660-foot square blocks were platted and built emanating from Temple Square after settlers arrived. Industry took hold along the Jordan River, polluting it with industrial waste. Redlining maps were drawn, marking Westside neighborhoods undesirable for federally-backed mortgages compared to Eastside neighborhoods. I-15 was expanded, including rebuilding many interchanges and creating many of the current long, auto-centric overpasses that connect east to west across the freeway and railroad tracks. Late 1800s1850s–1860s 1939 1997–2001 Late 1870s 1880s–1920 1960s–1970s 2023 2025 SLC launches the WE Connect transportation study funded by the USDOT Reconnecting Communities grant. SLC West East CONNECTIONS 54 INTRODUCTION August 2025 LOOKING AT THE BARRIERS The existing transportation barriers to and from the Westside, including I-15 and the rail lines, contribute to existing physical west-east divide, as seen below. This study focuses on the neighborhoods most affected by that division. Utah has nearly 3,400 railroad and rail supply workers. Union Pacific made more than $375 million in capital investments from 2018-2022 in Utah track. PREVIOUS STUDIES Many plans and studies have shaped SLC’s transportation and land use decisions over the years. These documents provide context, identify community priorities, and highlight past and ongoing efforts to improve mobility, safety, and connectivity, serving as a foundation to inform our work. By referring do these resources, we can maintain consistency with past efforts, avoid duplication, and support a unified vision for the area. This report also uses available sources such as US Census, transportation, and financial data as cited throughout the document. Multiple plans and studies inform this Foundation Report, including the following: WE CONNECT STUDY TIMELINE The communities adjacent to the divide are at the forefront of the WE Connect study. Community members will play a lead role in all phases of the two year study, as outlined below. »2025 Rio Grande Plan Economic Impact Analysis »2024 Rio Grande Plan Financing and Economic Development Strategies »2023 Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) Regional Transportation Plan »2023 SLC Crossings Study Engagement Memo »2023 Connect SLC Plan – Citywide Transportation Plan »2023 Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) I-15 Expansion EIS »2023 Rio Grande Plan Screening Analysis »2022 SLC Transportation Priority Projects – East-West Connections »2022 Ballpark Station Area Plan »2021 SLC Westside Transportation Equity Study »2020 Folsom Trail Feasibility Study »2018 9 Line Trail Extension Study »2017 Wasatch Front Central Corridor Study »2017 Utah Freight Plan Summary »2017 SLC Transit Master Plan »2016 Downtown Community Master Plan »2015 SLC Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan »2014 Westside Master Plan »2010 North Temple Boulevard Plan February – December 2025 December 2025 – August 2026 August 2026 – January 2027 January - February 2027 DEF�NE THE PROBLEM • Community engagement • Foundation report • Existing conditions DEVELOP �DEAS • Co-create solutions • Screening analysis PR�OR�T�ZE THE SOLUT�ONS • Feasibility analysis • Prioritize solutions ACT�ON PLAN • Map to realization COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT We are here According to FHWA, more than 300,000 vehicles travel through Salt Lake on I-15 every day. Amtrak spent $14.7 million on Utah vendors alone in 2024. Amtrak’s California Zephyr serves Salt Lake City once daily in each direction on its journey between Chicago and San Francisco. UTA FrontRunner has one of the highest commuter rail riderships in the US. With over four million riders in 2024. SLC West East CONNECTIONS 76 INTRODUCTION August 2025 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The SLC WE Connect Foundation Report is guided by the Salt Lake City Transportation Division. A group of Westside residents will play a crutial role in shaping the development of this study as part of the Community Advisory Board (CAB). CAB members were selected through an open application process to represent the cultural and socioeconomic diversity of the Westside. A variety of local stakeholders will provide further support and guidance including the following key participants: Funding Partners »Utah Transit Authority (UTA) »Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) »Salt Lake City Mayor and City Council »Salt Lake City Public Utilities (SLCPU) »Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency (CRA) Project Team »Kimley-Horn – prime consultant, project management »Nelson\Nygaard – transportation planning »Perkins + Will – urban design »Alta Planning + Design – active transportation »David Evans and Associates, Inc. – public involvement »Township + Range – public art coordination »ECONorthwest – economic analysis CONTENTS WHAT IS THE WE CONNECT STUDY? 2 WHO WE ARE 8 HOW WE MOVE 16 OUR WELLBEING 30 OUR COMMUNITY 38 SLC West East CONNECTIONS 98 SLC West East CONNECTIONS WHO WE ARE DEMOGRAPHICS AND WORKFORCE AGE In 2010, children under the age of 15 made up the largest age group in the study area. Since then, this group has declined by nearly 30%. At the same time, the number of older adults has grown. The population aged 55 to 64 increased by 22%, and those aged 65 to 74 grew by more than 60%. Many middle-aged groups have also seen growth, suggesting that the Westside continues to be home to long-term residents and aging families. HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION Although the average household size has declined slightly, the Westside households remain larger than the citywide norm, reflecting a strong presence of family households and multi- generational living arrangements. More than 30% of households in the Westside include children, compared to just under 20% citywide. Page Source: ESRI Business Analyst Online (BAO); Kimley-Horn In recent years, the demographic and socio-economic landscape in Salt Lake City has undergone notable changes. Shifts in age distribution, racial diversity, educational attainment, and workforce dynamics paint an increasingly diverse and evolving picture of the community. Through data analysis and community feedback initiatives, we have gained insight into the unique challenges and opportunities faced by residents, guiding our efforts to address critical issues and foster continued growth and inclusivity. Findings are focused on Salt Lake City’s Westside, comprised of six major neighborhoods: Westpointe, Rose Park, Jordan Meadows, Fairpark, Poplar Grove, and Glendale. These neighborhoods are home to a vibrant, evolving community characterized by a youthful and diverse population. POPULATION In 2010, nearly one in three Salt Lake City residents lived in the Westside. Today, that number is closer to one in four. This shift doesn’t necessarily reflect people leaving in large numbers, but rather that other areas of the city are growing faster. 2010 2024 Study Area Total Population (2024) 56,349 Salt Lake City Total Population (2024) 205,841 Po p u l a t i o n G r o w t h ( 2 0 1 0 - 2 0 2 4 ) 10.4% -0.3% Sa l t L a k e C i t y We s t s i d e S t u d y A r e a SLC West East CONNECTIONS 1110 WHO WE ARE August 2025 RACIAL DIVERSITY While residents identifying as White make up the largest racial group at 43%, the Westside also includes meaningful representation from individuals identifying as Other Race (25%), Two or More Races (14%), and Asian or Pacific Islander (11%). ETHNICITY In Census data, whether a person identifies as Hispanic or Latino refers to ethnicity, regardless of their race. In Census data, individuals who identify as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Approximately 48% of the Westside identifies as Hispanic or Latino, more than double the citywide share of 22%. EDUCATION Nearly half of the residents in the Westside have a high school diploma or some college education but have not completed a degree. Just under 18% of Westside residents have earned a bachelor’s degree, and 8% hold a graduate or professional degree, lower than citywide averages. In Salt Lake City overall, more than 30% of adults have a bachelor’s degree, and nearly 23% have a graduate degree. Source: ESRI BAO WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED AND HEARD Community Survey #1, offered in both English and Spanish, requested optional demographic data from the over 1,050 respondents, providing insight into who is participating in the WE Connect Study. Many respondents reported they live within the Westside, most often being from Zip Codes 84104 (28%) and 84116 (27%). However, 75% of respondents identified as White or Caucasian, while only 11% identified as Hispanic or Latino, despite this group being 48% of the Westside neighborhood population. The project team is actively working with the CAB and stakeholders to better engage the Hispanic and Latino community. WE Connect Community Kick-Off Event held in May 2025 at Edison Elementary School The primary goal of this event was engaging Westside residents and exploring the impacts of the west-east divide in Salt Lake City. The event emphasized the importance of community collaboration to identify problems, build trust between the study team and community, and demonstrate the city’s commitment to prioritizing community-driven solutions. There were several activities aimed at gathering feedback about the lived experiences and perceptions of Westside residents. An 18-foot project area map station gathered input on key barriers influencing travel within and outside the study area. A smaller project area map station gathered comments about amenities and motivations for traveling beyond the Westside. Also, a graphic recorder gathered comments to understand how the west-east divide impacts people’s daily lives. Overall, respondents expressed how large and noticeable an impact the divide has on the community and neighborhoods on the Westside. Some frequent buzzwords throughout the discussion were community and divide. Other quotes captured during the event by the graphic recorder were Pictured: A graphic recorder at the community event gathered comments to understand how the west-east divide impacts people’s daily lives. 22% of those living in Salt Lake City report living with a disability. 9% of Salt Lake City residents speak English less than “very well” 13% of households in Salt Lake City are living below the poverty level. Source: 2023 US Census and US Census American Community Survey and 2021 SLC Westside Transportation Equity Study 26% of those living on the Westside report living with a disability. 11% of Westside residents speak English less than “very well” 12% of households in the Westside are living below the poverty level. SLC West East CONNECTIONS 1312 WHO WE ARE August 2025 WORKFORCE AND INCOME Employment patterns, wage distribution, and commuting trends in the study area help us to better understand the landscape of opportunity and where it can be strengthened to support long-term prosperity for Westside residents. Survey results were shared with the CAB for review and analysis. In their feedback, the CAB highlighted a recurring theme: many respondents pointed to a lack of economic development on the Westside. While most jobs earn more than $40,000, the high share of lower-wage work underscores the need for career pathways, wage growth, and supportive services for workers in essential but often underpaid roles. This is important when compared with the county’s living wage estimates, which show that even a single adult without children needs to earn over $50,000 per year to cover basic expenses. For families, the gap is even more pronounced. A single parent with two children would need to earn over $100,000 to meet a living wage. Roughly one in three jobs in the Westside pays under $40,000 annually. Page Source: ESRI BAO LARGEST WESTSIDE INDUSTRIES INDUSTRIES Job density in the Westside is anchored by key public, industrial, and logistics employers. High-density locations include the Multi- Agency State Office Building, Utah Department of Health and Human Services, and Associated Food Stores’ headquarters and warehouse. These employers reflect broader job growth trends in public administration, transportation and warehousing, and construction, all of which saw major gains between 2017 and 2022. Together, they help position the Westside as a regional hub for both government services and goods movement. Only 6% of jobs on the Westside are held by Westside residents. Between 2017 and 2022, the Westside added more than 3,500 jobs, reflecting overall job growth of nearly 13%. Page Source: ESRI BAO INFLOW-OUTFLOW The Westside draws its workforce from across the region. The majority of those workers live in West Valley City, West Jordan, and Taylorsville, followed by cities like Sandy, Millcreek, and South Jordan. Only a small share both live and work within the area: the vast majority commute in from other cities and communities. - University of Utah, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, Mean Centers of Population and Employment in Utah’s Economic Regions, June 2024 1 in 3 Utahns live in Salt Lake County, but the county supports nearly 1/2 of all jobs in the state —making it the main economic engine of Utah. 29,766 22,263 living in the Westside commute outcommute into the Westside 1,804 live and work in the Westside SLC West East CONNECTIONS 1514 WHO WE ARE August 2025 CATEGORY OPPORTUNITY Expand Access to Quality Jobs Invest in job training programs that prepare residents for growing careers in logistics, construction, and public administration. Promote living-wage employment by prioritizing businesses and developments that commit to local hiring and wage standards. Leverage the presence of government employers to create job pipelines for study area residents. Support Families and Educational Advancement Build family-serving infrastructure, including childcare, parks, and school- based resources, that reflect the area’s larger household sizes. Increase access to adult education and workforce credentials that help residents move into higher-paying careers. Improve Regional Mobility Strengthen public transit connections between the Westside and major employment centers across the region. Develop transportation solutions that reduce commute burdens and support both inbound workers and local residents traveling outward for jobs. OPPORTUNITIES CHALLENGES CATEGORY CHALLENGES Economic Disconnection Residents rely on employment outside the area, reinforcing a mismatch between housing, income, and job proximity. A large share of local jobs pay below $40,000 annually, falling short of the income needed to support typical household living costs. Barriers to Mobility and Advancement Career advancement is constrained by limited access to workforce development programs and higher-wage job pipelines. Transportation options do not adequately support the area’s commuting patterns, resulting in long travel distances and added financial strain for both residents and inbound workers Stagnant Growth The Westside has experienced little to no population growth in over a decade, signaling underinvestment and limited development. Job growth has been concentrated in a small number of sectors, limiting the diversity of employment opportunities available to residents. EXISTING STRENGTHS AND CULTURE The Westside of Salt Lake City is more than a collection of neighborhoods—it’s a vibrant, resilient community shaped by generations of cultural richness, mutual care, and grassroots action. From murals that celebrate identity to community gardens, block parties, and local businesses that serve as gathering places, the Westside’s cultural and social fabric is one of its greatest strengths. Public art, creative expression, and strong neighborhood ties make the Westside not only a great place to live, but a place to belong. These traits form the foundation for future investments and opportunity. ART AND ACTIVATION Area residents and instituitions have made significant progress in activating “lost” spaces created by the interstate crossings. Art and activation help soften these spaces with community amenities and placemaking to provide destinations, develop neighborhood pride, and create opportunities to showcase local artists. “Pillars of the Community” Art pieces on the pillars of the I-15 underpass at 300 N provide a canvas to engage local artists in the beautification of their communities. This mosaic tile work—created by nearly 20 local artists—depicts neighborhood figures like teachers, athletes, and Navajo Code Talkers. This public art project, supported by NeighborWorks, builds pride and connection by reflecting the identities and stories of the surrounding community. “Daylight” Created by Roots Art Kollective, composed of three Mexican American artists Miguel Galaz, Alan Ochoa, and Luis Novoaall who are all former SLCC students, the Daylight mural brings vibrant energy to Salt Lake City’s Folsom Trail. Stretching 275 feet, the mural celebrates themes of water and movement and supports broader efforts to “daylight” City Creek. Selected from over 30 proposals, the artwork is a powerful example of local creativity activating public space and reflecting community identity. SLC West East CONNECTIONS 1716 SLC West East CONNECTIONS HOW WE MOVE TRANSPORTATION The historic development of Salt Lake City’s transportation systems has led to an undeniable reality: it is easier and more reliable for people to travel north to south than it is to move east to west. This “divide” impacts people traveling by all modes, shapes daily decisions about how and when to travel, and is a challenge for many businesses. For people driving, this means limited access points to neighborhoods and frustrating waits for stopped or slow-moving freight trains. For people walking, cycling, or rolling, the impact is equally frustrating and can lead to dangerous behaviors including illegal crossings between train cars, bypassing gates to cross the tracks, or lengthy detours over railway viaducts, which have limited facilities for safety and comfort. For transit customers, the opportunities to access frequent transit are shaped by a limited set of grade-separated crossings, since UTA will not subject buses to at- grade rail crossings. Put simply, the interstate and railways create physical and psychological barriers that limit access to jobs, services, and recreation for Westside residents. WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED TRAVEL PATTERNS Each day, tens of thousands of Westside residents make trips across the I-15 divide to reach destinations on the city’s east side. Travel patterns from Westside neighborhoods show how many weekday trips are made from Westside neighborhoods to the east, and outlines the top five east-side destinations for Westside residents. Of the Westside neighborhoods, Glendale sees the most trips to the east side, but Downtown, Ballpark, and Capitol Hill are all major destinations for Westside residents. Improving west-east walking, rolling, transit, and bike connections could lead to travel time improvements and a better overall travel experience for those making these trips. TYPICAL WEEKDAY TRIPS TO THE EAST SIDE Page Source: Replica Data This map shows eastward travel across 1-15 and rail from the Westside on a typical weekday. Each pie chart displays the top five Eastside destinations for Westside residents. The size of each slice shows how many trips come from each Westside neighborhood area, using color to represent where each trip started. 0 0.3 0.5 1 1.5 Miles N SLC West East CONNECTIONS 1918 HOW WE MOVE August 2025 PEOPLE DRIVING Salt Lake City’s street network follows a standard compass grid with famously long, 660-foot blocks. While this layout typically supports easy navigation, I-15 and freight and passenger rail lines disrupt the grid and limit reliable west-east travel. These barriers improve regional vehicle and freight flow but create significant delays at at-grade rail crossings. Video data from nine rail crossings in the study area shows how challenging crossing can be. While some train-related vehicle delays are under 10 minutes, many stretch to 15 minutes or more—and in rare cases, long freight trains stopped on the tracks can cause hour-long waits and forced detours. Cumulatively, most crossings see over two hours of total daily delay. People walking, biking, or rolling also face these impacts, with delays adding time and frustration to reaching their destination. The table below summarizes daily delay frequency, average, and maximum wait times, and the number of vehicles rerouting due to long waits. Crossings at 300 N, 600 W, 1700 S, and 200 S experience the most frequent delays, while 600 W, 200 S, and 1700 S have the highest cumulative wait times. While Frontrunner-related gate closures average less than 60 seconds, most blockages are caused by freight trains, affecting all modes of travel. PEOPLE RIDING BICYCLES Bicycling is a cornerstone of a healthy, connected, and equitable Salt Lake City, especially in lower-income one or no-car households. The benefits of active transportation are numerous and well documented, from cost savings and improved health and wellness to reduced carbon emissions and beyond. The map below highlights the existing bicycle facilities in the project area. High-comfort facilities, such as protected bike lanes and paved paths, are important to ensure bicycling is accessible to all ages and abilities. The 9-Line Trail and Folsom Trail provide high-quality trail connections across the railroad tracks and underneath the interstate. Lower-quality painted bike lanes are present on 300 N, North Temple, 200 S, 700 S, 800 S, and 1700 S. DAILY RAILROAD CROSSING DELAYS & QUEUES EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES, CROSSINGS, & GAPS CROSSING AVERAGE DAILY NUMBER OF BLOCKAGES* AVERAGE TOTAL DAILY BLOCKAGE TIME MAX OBSERVED SINGLE BLOCKAGE TIME MAX DAILY # OF VEHICLES THAT TURN AROUND/ REROUTE DUE TO BLOCKAGE 300 N (east of 500 W)96 Blockages 4h 53m 17s 2h 57m 16s 44 Reroutes 600 W (south of S Temple)110 Blockages 8h 22m 59s 13h 59m 34s 54 Reroutes 800 W (south of S Temple)21 Blockages 1h 37m 22s 24m 24s 3 Reroutes 900 West (south of South Temple)28 Blockages 1h 30m 33s 12m 7s 14 Reroutes 1000 West (south of South Temple)29 Blockages 2h 8m 14s 35m 56s No data 200 S (west of 600 W)92 Blockages 2h 38m 57s 21m 42s 13 Reroutes 800 S (west of 600 W)77 Blockages 2h 20m 31s 23m 29s 20 Reroutes 900 S (west of 600 W)77 Blockages 2h 20m 35s 23m 55s 6 Reroutes 1700 S (east of 700 W)78 Blockages 4h 49m 07s 2h 36s 73 Reroutes *Blockage refers to rail gates/barriers being lowered to stop people and vehicles from crossing rail tracks (“gate-down time”). Video closure analysis for each crossing was conducted over 3 consecutive days in May. All data is based on a 3 weekday collection. SLC West East CONNECTIONS 2120 HOW WE MOVE August 2025 The map below shows how far someone can walk in about 20 minutes (roughly one mile) from four key areas on the Westside. These areas were selected because they are important community hubs with shops, services, or transit access: »1200 W & 600 N »Jackson/Euclid TRAX Station on North Temple »900 W & 800 S »900 W & 1300 S In a neighborhood with a well-connected sidewalk and street network, a 20-minute walk would create a diamond-shaped area, spreading evenly in all directions. However, on the Westside, this is not the case. I-15 and the rail lines create major barriers that cut off direct walking routes and limit how far people can actually go on foot within 20 minutes. You’ll notice that the walking areas (called “walksheds”) shrink and become uneven when they hit these barriers. These limitations show how disconnected some neighborhoods are and emphasize the need for safer, more direct pedestrian routes on the Westside. 20-MINUTE WALKSHEDS FROM KEY CENTERS PEOPLE WALKING/ROLLING Salt Lake City’s Westside neighborhoods have some of the lowest Walk Score ratings in the City. The map below shows Walk Score by neighborhood, highlighting Westside communities in relation to Eastside communities across walking, biking, and transit access. Trains blocking the path of people biking and walking can be more impactful than those driving, as lengthy detours are often not possible on foot. This is further exacerbated by missing or insufficient sidewalks on some of the viaducts over the railways and interstate, including those at 600 N, 400 S, and 2100 S. Uncomfortable and poorly lit interstate underpasses are also a concern. For residents with accessibility needs, long and steep viaducts, missing and insufficient sidewalks, and a lack of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) features (like curb cuts), can make barriers impenetrable. Source: Walk Score Walker’s Paradise Daily errands do not require a car Very Walkable Most errands can be accomplished on foot Somewhat Walkable Some errands can be accomplished on foot Car-Dependent Most errands require a car Very Car-Dependent Almost all errands require a car 100-90 89-70 69-50 49-25 24-0 Legend UTA FrontRunne r Railroad UTA TRAX Schools Libraries Universities ! !! 1200 W / 600N Jackson-EuclidTRAX Station 900 W / 800 S 900 W / 1300 S Unreliable Walkshed Destinations Center Walksheds 0 1 1.5 The hashed areas highlight where walk times are unpredictable or delayed due to at-grade rail crossings, where pedestrians may have to wait for passing trains. Survey respondents and Community Event attendees shared that they often avoid walking altogether, as delays from stopped trains and the need to reroute can significantly extend their travel time. SLC West East CONNECTIONS 2322 HOW WE MOVE August 2025 PEOPLE USING TRANSIT Public transit plays a vital role in shaping the accessibility and economic vitality of Salt Lake City, helping all residents have access to opportunity and the ability to thrive. Past planning efforts, like the 2020 Westside Transportation Equity Study, highlight the Westside’s unique transit concerns. Salt Lake City and UTA have taken the first steps to address these challenges by launching UTA On Demand service on the Westside and implementing new Westside routes as part of the Frequent Service Network. ACCESS TO FREQUENT TRANSIT SERVICE Since 2019, UTA has made significant improvements to transit service in Westside neighborhoods. Proactive planning efforts like UTA’s 5-year service plan and Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) aim to continue increasing the span and frequency of transit service for Westside residents. While Salt Lake City has a robust public transit system including TRAX and buses, the Westside still lacks some direct and frequent connections to major destinations on the Eastside. The frequency map shows how many residents have access to a 15-minute frequent service transit stop within a ¼ mile, or 10-minute walk. While most of the Westside residents can walk to frequent transit with ¼ mile, there are destinations to the north, south, and east in our project area that are not walkable. It is also important to note that transit frequency may fluctuate in the evenings and on weekends, which may reduce residents’ ability to access frequent, reliable transit service. TRANSIT STOP/STATION AMENITIES & ACCESSIBILITY Transit amenities like benches and shelters and access elements like continuous sidewalks and ADA compliance significantly improve the quality of transit trips for riders, making transit easier and safer to get to, and more comfortable to ride. While most transit stops in Westside neighborhoods do have lighting, many lack benches and shelters, particularly along important corridors like North Redwood Road. Most transit stops in Westside neighborhoods are accessible by sidewalk and are ADA compliant, but several stops, particularly along Redwood Road, are in need of ADA upgrades. 0 .5 1 Miles N New bus stops on 200 S SLC West East CONNECTIONS 2524 HOW WE MOVE August 2025 WHAT WE HAVE HEARD Comments gathered from the WE Connect Community Kick-Off Event and the first Community Survey, conducted in May and June of 2025, expressed frustration with delays caused by trains. There was a sense of frustration when having to reroute, due to increased commute time and a lack of alternative routes. Many respondents noted transportation safety concerns. People who bicycle expressed feeling unsafe due to aggressive drivers, noting the cause of aggression coming from frustration from train delays and lack of awareness in confusing intersections. They also identified issues with the maintenance and conditions of existing bike lanes. People walking expressed safety and security concerns in crossing intersections and walking in underpasses. Traffic congestion was also commonly mentioned from pedestrian respondents, noting that the combination of traffic and trains create significant blockages at key crossings. Many comments also noted efforts to avoid crossing the divide in any way possible. Some of the comments captured in the survey and at the community event include: N ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY A comprehensive and frequent public transit network means more choices to get around, and faster, more reliable trips. This makes it easier to access key destinations and services like schools, libraries, hospitals, and community centers. Wish I could bike, but I have to drive in case the street is blocked. I have seen school children climbing under railcars ahead of oncoming trains, I have been late to meetings and events, I have gotten sunburned while waiting on my bike.Survey responses called for an expansion of public transportation on the Westside, with some comments expressing frustration with the Westside not being a part of the TRAX free fare zones. This map shows how far a Westside resident can travel in 30 minutes by public transit from the 600 North/900 West area. It highlights limited access to the southern part of the city, meaning longer travel times to reach key resources. These gaps are due in part to UTA’s challenges in providing the transit network across a small number of grade- separated rail and freeway crossings. SLC West East CONNECTIONS 2726 HOW WE MOVE August 2025 CHALLENGES/OPPORTUNITIES Corridors throughout the study area pose major challenges for those driving, walking, and rolling across the west-east divide. Most through-streets are auto-centric, with high traffic volumes and speeds – leading to high stress environments and a high number of collisions. Seven of the 11 I-15 through streets seen below are high-risk roadways. There are also more than 30 locations where the street grid is disconnected at I-15 and the railroad tracks. Those walking or rolling only have three low stress options. Furthermore, at-grade rail crossings are active hundreds of times a day with no published schedule for when freight trains will pass through- causing significant delays for those who travel on these corridors. These most challenging corridors present an opportunity to improve biking and walking conditions, creating safer, lower stress options, and reducing crashes. The train lines in this area connect to “roper yards” where trains are loaded, unloaded, and/ or reconfigured to move goods throughout Utah and the western US. SLC West East CONNECTIONS 2928 HOW WE MOVE August 2025 EXISTING EFFORTS AND INVESTMENTS Salt Lake City has already begun making important strides to address the longstanding barriers that limit safe, comfortable travel between the Westside and the rest of the city. These projects not only improve daily mobility for residents but also serve as examples of how infrastructure can connect rather than separate. WEST-EAST TRAIL CONNECTIONS There are some great existing west-east trail connections that provide access through the railroad and interstate barriers. While these trail connections are periodically hindered by delays with at-grade rail crossings, they do provide high-comfort, safe, and separated facilities for users of all ages and abilities—serving both transportation and recreation purposes. Along with the north-south Jordan River Trail, the west-east Folsom Trail, 9 Line Trail, and Parleys Trail serve as the active transportation backbone of Salt Lake City and beyond. 300 N GRADE-SEPARATED CROSSING The grade-separated pedestrian bridge over the railways at 300 N provides an excellent precedent for high-comfort, high-reliability connections through the west-east barriers. In addition to the overcrossing of the railways, a painted bike lane, an undercrossing of I-15, and relatively low traffic volumes on 300 N provide Salt Lake City’s best example of west-east permeability, especially for students traveling to West High. While ADA accessibility can be a challenge with overcrossings, the bridge includes an elevator to get people with mobility challenges up and down off the bridge. REAL-TIME CROSSING ALERT SIGNAGE Real-time information boards have been added to 900 W and North Temple to inform drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians of upcoming traffic interruptions caused by train crossings. This technology has helped first responders, westside residents, and commuters make more informed decisions to avoid extended delays at train crossings. Recognizing the importance of conveying this information to all road users, a partnership between Salt Lake City and the Utah Inland Port Authority will expand the signage to five additional at-grade rail crossings: 300 N, 200 S, 800 S, 900 S, and 1700 S. Folsom Trail 9 Line Trail 900 W & N Temple Info Sign By addressing infrastructure gaps, investing in multimodal corridors, and prioritizing safety, Salt Lake City can begin stitching together its west and east communities. COMMUNITY DRIVEN CONCEPTS In addition to projects completed by Salt Lake City, community groups have championed ideas to address the west–east divide, most notably the Rio Grande Plan (RGP). The RGP proposes moving Union Pacific, FrontRunner, and Amtrak rail into an underground ‘train box’ beneath 500 West. This citizen-led effort has been catalytic in elevating the conversation and understanding all potential approaches through a community-driven lens. 300 N Pedestrian Bridge SLC West East CONNECTIONS 3130 SLC West East CONNECTIONS OUR WELLBEING HEALTH AND SAFETY WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED AND HEARD Salt Lake City’s Westside communities face disproportionate challenges when it comes to health and safety. Past studies document how historical infrastructure decisions, particularly the construction of I-15 and freight rail corridors, contributed to divisions in air quality, access to healthcare, and traffic safety outcomes across the city. The following table uses data from HealthySaltLake.org, based on their ‘Glendale’ and ‘Rose Park’ boundaries, which encompass all six Westside neighborhoods. Health and safety are foundational to a community’s wellbeing. When wellbeing is strong, communities are better equipped to thrive. In Salt Lake City, residents’ health, safety, and access to essential services are closely tied to the built environment—how streets are designed, how neighborhoods are connected, and how decisions about land use and transportation are made. The west-east divide plays a significant role in shaping cultural, racial, economic, and psychological outcomes for residents. Throughout multiple planning studies, a central theme raised by the community is the vision for a city where living west or east of the “divide” has no impact on one’s education, safety, daily routine, or economic opportunity. Understanding how factors like traffic safety, environmental health, and access to care differ across neighborhoods provides important context for improving community wellbeing citywide. SLC West East CONNECTIONS 3332 OUR WELLBEING August 2025 NOISE POLLUTION Noise pollution continues to be an issue that disproportionately affects the Westside. This is something that was identified in previous studies and captured at the WE Connect Community Kick-Off Event and first Community Survey, conducted in May and June of 2025. Long-term exposure to environmental noise has been linked to increased risks of heart disease, hypertension, sleep disturbances, stress, and impaired cognitive development in children. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), noise exposure above 55 dB can trigger adverse health effects, especially in areas with consistent nighttime noise. People living in areas with heavy transportation noise are 25% more likely to develop hypertension compared to those in quieter areas. Source: World Health Organization, “Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region,” 2018 Numerous environmental health reports show elevated cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and childhood asthma among people living near heavily traveled freeways and rail corridors. Diesel-powered trains and busy rail yards compound these risks, contributing particulate pollution that increases long-term exposure impacts. A 2019 study showed that children living near a freeway experienced development delays two times the national average. (Source: Environmental Research, Volume 174, July 2019. Prenatal and early life exposures to ambient air pollution and development.) AIR QUALITY Residents have voiced concerns about pollution-related illness and have called for change. In the 2021 SLC Westside Transportation Equity Study, community members shared personal experiences with asthma and a lack of safe places to exercise. Pollution exposure varies with wind, traffic, and time of day, but those living near I-15 and the rail corridor face persistent environmental stress. This is compounded by limited tree canopy, high heat exposure, and scarce access to quality open space. The Westside Neighborhoods Environmental Justice and Air Quality Assessment found major disparities in air quality, health, and socioeconomic conditions in the six Westside neighborhoods. These areas experience some of the worst environmental impacts in the city— and in some cases, the state. Future development should be planned with care to avoid adding further burdens, with impacts evaluated, mitigated, and monitored over time. This map shows annual exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which are tiny inhalable particles linked to serious health risks. Most Westside census tracts are in the 90th percentile or higher for PM2.5 exposure nationally. Salt Lake City currently does not meet federal PM2.5 air quality standards, highlighting the significant pollution burden on these communities. sound dampening!!! Train horn is LOUD and FREQUENT! POLLUTION EXPOSURE MAP SLC West East CONNECTIONS 3534 OUR WELLBEING August 2025 Crash data demonstrates that the Westside experiences a higher rate of serious and fatal crashes, particularly for pedestrians and bicyclists. The 2021 Westside Transportation Equity Study found that many collisions occur along major west-east arterials like North Temple, Redwood Road, 500 South, and 1300 South. Similarly, the 2023 Connect SLC Transportation Plan identifies a Vision Zero High Injury Network, revealing that over 70% of serious crashes take place on just 10% of streets—many of them in Westside neighborhoods. Investing in better crossings and active transportation infrastructure isn’t just about convenience; it’s a critical step toward saving lives and creating healthier, more connected communities. TRAFFIC SAFETY Community members consistently express the need for safer, more welcoming crossings, especially along busy arterials and near rail corridors. Participants in this and previous studies have emphasized the importance of healthier environments and improved walking and biking conditions. The 2023 Crossings Study Engagement Memo highlights frequent concerns about discomfort and fear when crossing I-15 or freight rail lines, particularly among children and seniors. 77% of fatal crashes in SLC take place on the Westside. Source: SLC crash reports Source: Fatality and Serious Injury Data, UDOT Zero Fatalities Source: UDOT AASHTOWare Safety by Numetric N RE D W O O D R O A D N TEMPLE RE D W O O D R O A D 600 N 1300 S 90 0 W 90 0 W Emergency response is significantly impacted by east-west barriers like train crossings and limited corridor access, leading to delays and resource juggling. Fire and medical units often encounter blocked crossings without real-time information. This map highlights collisions involving trains and people driving, walking, or biking within the last 5 years alone. SLC West East CONNECTIONS 3736 OUR WELLBEING August 2025 CHALLENGES/OPPORTUNITIES Near-term improvements, such as better lighting, crossing signals, and pedestrian refuge islands, like those being implemented in neighborhood byway routes alongside longer-term strategies to reduce serious crashes and support active travel. Opportunities to improve safety also include addressing rail-related crashes and exploring the use of quiet zones, grade separations, or advanced warning systems at crossings. Partnering with public health, law enforcement, and school organizations have amplified the impact of these efforts and strengthen the city's commitment to Vision Zero goals. While these challenges are significant, Salt Lake City continues to face persistent gaps in infrastructure, environmental health, and access to services. Bridging these disparities requires ongoing coordination and sustained investment. The City also partners with the Salt Lake County Health Department, local schools, and community health organizations to align transportation infrastructure with broader wellbeing goals. By continuing to support investments in safety, environmental health, and access to services, Salt Lake City is laying the groundwork for a more connected and thriving future for residents on both sides of the divide. COMMUNITY CONCERNS The WE Connect Community Kick-Off Event participants and Community Survey respondents reported overall that their well-being is negatively impacted by the west-east divide, including feelings of isolation and resource inequity and concerns for health and safety. A major concern among respondents was the difficulty in accessing quality groceries. Many reported needing to travel across the city divide to reach better grocery stores and fresh produce on the east side. Health-related concerns were also common, including stress caused by delays in crossing, as well as exposure to air and noise pollution. Additionally, respondents noted the need to cross the divide to access a broader range of healthcare services along with safety concerns serving as a barrier to recreation and exercise amenities like the Jordan River Trail. EXISTING EFFORTS AND INVESTMENTS Salt Lake City and community organizations are actively addressing many of the health and safety issues described in this section through collaborative strategies and targeted investments. These efforts are showing results—fatal and serious injury crashes have decreased on corridors where improvements have been implemented. For example, by redesigning streets to calm traffic, installing Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) Signals, and enhancing lighting and crossings, Salt Lake City has successfully reduced crash severity and improved safety outcomes. Continuing and expanding these proven strategies is essential to building a safer and more connected city. Key ongoing efforts include: »Neighborhood byways on 600 N and 900 W »Safe Routes to School programs »Partnerships with Salt Lake County Health Department and the Salt Lake City Police Department's Pioneer Bike Squad »Community partnerships with schools, colleges, and universities to support safety and access »Ongoing crossing improvements along the Jordan River Trail and North Temple Corridor »PHB Signals along key corridors »The Mayor’s budget recommended for Fiscal Year 2026 included $2.3 million for Vision Zero safety improvements including to Redwood Road, 900 West, and 800 South, which have significantly higher crash rates than most other city streets »The Westside Community Conexiones website lists several other ongoing projects and investments The train crossings create a physical barrier that separates us from the rest of the city. And I-15 creates pollution that directly impacts the quality of life on the Westside. These two major reasons can make it feel like we are on “the wrong side of the tracks. (WE Connect Community Survey #1, Question 7) Pedestrian Hybrid Signal (PHB)300 N Reconstruction SLC West East CONNECTIONS 3938 WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED AND HEARD HOUSING The Westside offers relatively affordable homeownership opportunities compared to Salt Lake City overall, but has limited housing diversity that has not kept pace with citywide growth. The Westside is characterized by a predominance of single-family detached homes, which make up nearly 63% of all housing units, higher than the 45% citywide share. In contrast, multi-family housing represents just 30% of the study area’s housing stock, compared to 50% citywide. This difference highlights a more traditional, lower-density residential pattern on the Westside, with fewer attached or multifamily options available. The study area also includes a slightly higher share of mobile homes or alternative housing types, which may provide more affordable, though often limited, housing choices. Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 2019 – 2023 HOUSING UNIT GROWTH Between 2010 and 2024, the number of housing units in the Westside grew by just under 12%, adding a little over 2,200 new units. Salt Lake City’s housing stock increased by more than 20% over the same period. As a result, the study area’s share of the city’s total housing has gradually declined from 21.4% in 2010 to 19.6% in 2024. This trend suggests that while development is occurring, the area is contributing less to the city’s overall housing growth than in the past. Source: ESRI BAO SLC West East CONNECTIONS OUR COMMUNITY HOUSING AND PUBLIC SERVICES Housing and community infrastructure are deeply interconnected in shaping the day-to-day experience of Westside residents. The study area offers relatively more affordable housing than other parts of Salt Lake City, but it also faces challenges—slower housing growth, limited housing variety, and aging infrastructure—that constrain access to opportunity and long- term neighborhood stability. At the same time, the Westside is home to strong community assets, including parks, schools, and cultural spaces that anchor social connection. However, these assets are often disconnected and served by neglected or underfunded public spaces. Together, these conditions highlight the need for coordinated reinvestment in both housing and public infrastructure to ensure that westside neighborhoods remain inclusive, vibrant, and resilient. 20.4% 11.8% Salt Lake City Study Area Housing Unit Growth (2010-2024) Comparison of Housing Types Salt Lake City 45.5%49.9% 0.9% 3.7% Study Area 62.7% 30.1% 3.3% 3.9% Single-Family, Detached Single-Family, Attached Multi-Family Mobile Home/Other SLC West East CONNECTIONS 4140 WHERE WE LIVE AND CONNECT August 2025 STUDY AREA OCCUPANCY STATUS In 2010 about 58% of homes were owner-occupied in the Westside. By 2024, that share had decreased to 53.6%, while the share of renter-occupied homes rose to 46.4%. This shift reflects a gradual trend towards increased rental housing in the area, which may be driven by affordability pressures, changing household needs, or limited new ownership opportunities. The vacancies remain steady low, indicating steady demand for housing and limited availability of unoccupied units. Source: ESRI BAO HOUSING AGE, RENT, AND VALUE Homes in the Westside tend to be slightly newer than those across Salt Lake City. Despite having newer homes on average, the Westside remains more affordable by comparison. The median home value is $418,000, 31% lower than the $608,000 Citywide average. However, homes in the study area are 39% above the national average. Renters also face slightly lower costs of 7%, with a median rent of $1,076, compared to $1,163 across the City and $1,348 nationally. Source: ACS 2019 - 2023 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY Affordability remains a challenge across Salt Lake City, but the Westside shows a slightly more favorable profile. On average, households in the Westside spend 38.3% of their income on a mortgage, compared to 47.2% citywide. While both figures exceed the standard affordability benchmark of 30%, the Affordability Index score of 67 for the Westside, compared to 55 for the city overall, indicates relatively less financial strain for homeowners in the Westside area. This relative affordability is closely linked to broader housing trends in the area. Source: ESRI BAO PUBLIC SERVICES AND COMMUNITY ASSETS While housing and housing affordability play a central role in shaping neighborhood stability, the quality of public services and access to community assets are equally critical to residents’ daily lives and long-term opportunity. During the WE Connect Kick-Off Event, we asked attendees about community needs and assets. By leaving comments on a large map of the Westside, attendees expressed a strong desire for improved public amenities and neighborhood services. Commonly requested needs include: »Green Space & Recreation: More parks, open fields, walking trails, and larger or more accessible soccer fields. Swings and playgrounds for children were also mentioned. »Tree Canopy & Beautification: Many requested more trees citywide, particularly along North Temple, to improve shade and aesthetics. »Public Art & Cultural Amenities: Calls for more public art and new spaces like museums or children’s museums to enrich neighborhood identity. »Dining & Local Business Support: Strong interest in more restaurants, bars, cafés, and neighborhood centers like 9th & 9th. Residents noted the loss of long- standing local businesses on North Temple and requested tools (loans/grants) to support westside entrepreneurs. »Mixed-Use & Affordable Development: Requests for intentional development that includes affordable housing, mixed-use development, and neighborhood-scale retail, particularly around Rio Grande and North Temple. »Education: Repeated requests for a new Westside high school to address educational equity. »Infrastructure Improvements: Suggestions included burying power lines, adding more roundabouts, and increasing mixed zoning to encourage walkable, vibrant neighborhoods. Community member interacts with large map at WE Connect Kick-Off Event 2010 2024 Owner- Occupied 57.7% 53.6% Renter- Occupied 42.3% 46.4% Vacant 5.1% 4.7% STUDY AREA SALT LAKE CITY UNITED STATES Median Year Built 1971 1962 1980 Median Home Value $418,427 $608,116 $303,400 Median Rent $1,076 $1,163 $1,348 % INCOME FOR MORTAGE AFFORD- ABILITY INDEX Study Area 38.3% 67 Salt Lake City 47.2% 55 "these neig h b o r h o o d s are a food d e s e r t . This Smith's l a c k s quality fres h p r o d u c e . How can we g e t l o c a l , affordable, h e a l t h i e r foods?" (Amenities m a p , Open House M e e t i n g # 1 ) . “We NEED a west side high school!” (Amenities map, Open House Meeting #1). “More soccer fields!” (Amenities map, Open House Meeting #1) Housing on Salt Lake City’s Westside is shifting, with more residents renting and homeownership affordability remaining as a central concern. These trends in occupancy, housing age, value, and cost help illustrate how the area is evolving and how it compares to the rest of the city. SLC West East CONNECTIONS 4342 WHERE WE LIVE AND CONNECT August 2025 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND ASSETS Although the Westside includes clusters of valued community assets, such as parks, community centers, and cultural facilities, participants in the WE Connect Community Kick- Off Event and respondents to the Community Survey expressed a broader sense of neglect, inequity, and the need for expanded amenities. Many respondents specifically noted a desire for more parks and trees, highlighting the need for increased greenspace throughout the area. Mapping these assets reveals several identifiable groupings of community spaces. The Westside Equity Study noted that these clusters could be better connected using two of the area’s strongest existing resources: the Jordan River Parkway and the 9-Line Trail. According to the Salt Lake County Health Department, enhancing and linking these spaces has the potential to significantly improve social determinants of health for Westside communities. COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY While the Westside has a strong foundation of community infrastructure, mapping commercial activity reveals a critical gap: limited economic investment. This concern was echoed by participants at the Community Event and in the Community Survey. Many noted a lack of local economic development and business opportunities. Respondents expressed strong interest in more restaurants, mixed-use zoning, and support for local businesses. Commercial activity is significantly more concentrated on Salt Lake City’s Eastside. The densest clusters of retail, dining, and other services located east of I-15 shows an imbalance in access to everyday amenities and opportunities for local small businesses to flourish to the west. This disparity underscores the importance of creating more economic and mobility opportunities on the Westside. Downtown Salt Lake City Salt Lake City International Airport NORTH TEMPLENORTH TEMPLE 30 0 W 30 0 W 600 N600 N RE D W O O D R D RE D W O O D R D 90 0 W 90 0 W 15 SR 201 N Legend UTA FrontRunner Railroad UTA TRAX Schools Fire Stations Police Stations Health Facilities Libraries Downtown Salt Lake City Salt Lake City International Airport NORTH TEMPLENORTH TEMPLE 30 0 W 30 0 W 600 N600 N RE D W O O D R D RE D W O O D R D 90 0 W 90 0 W 15 SR 201 Legend UTA FrontRunner Railroad UTA TRAX Sparse Commercial Activity Dense Commercial Activity COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY 37% of survey respondents shared that they cannot easily access goods and services they need in their neighborhood 62% of survey respondents said social activities or recreation were primary reasons for crossing the west-east divide. Would love to see resources to encourage westsiders to open businesses on the west side (loans, grants). I can easily access some goods and services, but want to be able to easily access multiple areas of the city. (WE Connect Community Survey #1) Source: Open Street Maps NLegend UTA FrontRunner Railroad UTA TRAX Schools Fire Stations Police Stations Health Facilities Libraries Legend UTA FrontRunner Railroad UTA TRAX Sparse Commercial Activity Dense Commercial Activity N Source: Open Street Maps SLC West East CONNECTIONS 4544 WHERE WE LIVE AND CONNECT August 2025 CATEGORY OPPORTUNITY Affordability Median home values and rents are lower than City averages, providing more attainable options for moderate-income households. Households spend a smaller share of income on mortgage costs, making ownership more feasible compared to other parts of the city. Pathways to Stability The Westside has a mix of renters and owners, which supports long-term neighborhood stability. A stable tenure mix reduces rapid turnover and supports stronger community and neighborhood ties over time. Lower-cost ownership options create opportunities for wealth-building, particularly for first-time homebuyers. Civic Pride and Place Identity Revitalizing public infrastructure—like plazas, gathering spaces, and signage— can restore neighborhood character and foster belonging. Supporting local stewardship and cultural programming in public spaces helps reinforce pride in place and community resilience. CHALLENGES CATEGORY CHALLENGES Persistent Cost Burden Even with lower-than-average housing costs, many households still exceed the recommended thresholds for affordability, particularly renters. Rising living expenses paired with stagnant incomes continue to put financial strain on many residents. Households earning below the area’s median income are disproportionately impacted, with fewer affordable options that meet their needs. Limited Housing Growth and Choice Housing unit growth in the study area has lagged behind citywide trends, potentially limiting availability and driving up demand. The housing stock is dominated by single-family homes, offering limited options for smaller households, older adults, or those seeking more flexible or affordable formats. Limited availability of multi-family and accessory units constrains options for aging residents who wish to downsize but remain in the neighborhood. Underinvested Infrastructure Much of the housing is now over 50 years old and will require ongoing reinvestment to remain livable and efficient. Neglected streetscapes and lacking investment to maintain public and private spaces diminish neighborhood identity and discourage public life. EXISTING EFFORTS AND INVESTMENTSOPPORTUNITIES Love Your Block Grants Salt Lake City’s Love Your Block mini- grant program is helping the Westside neighborhoods create meaningful public services through small, resident-led projects. With up to $2,000 in funding, neighbors have transformed vacant lots, improved parks, installed placemaking signage, and made community gardens more accessible. Since 2022, 39 projects have been completed— each a testament to what’s possible when residents are given the tools to shape their own public spaces. The 9 Line Bike Park The 9 Line Bike Park is a standout example of how cities can transform underutilized land— like the space beneath I-15—into vibrant, inclusive public infrastructure. What was once an overlooked corridor now serves as a dynamic recreational asset, offering beginner to expert jump lines and a pump track that welcomes riders of all skill levels. This project demonstrates the potential of reimagining overlooked urban spaces to improve connectivity, promote active transportation, and enhance quality of life. Through thoughtful design and community stewardship, the 9 Line turns concrete underpass into a community hub that’s active, safe, and fun. The 9 Line Bike Park, underneath the I-15 overcrossing, transforms formally neglected space into a popular community destination with a pump track, jump lines, shade, benches, and drinking fountain. Increasing Investments in the Westside During her Fiscal Year 2026 budget speech, Mayor Erin Mendenhall stated, “We will do better for our Westside, which, as I’ve said for years, has historically faced systemic underinvestment from the City.” Her proposed budget includds $2.7 million in dedicated westside investments, focusing on improvements to parks and green spaces, enhanced street lighting, and safety upgrades. This funding also supports repairs to the Rose Park Lane Trail and continues the City’s commitment to UTA On-Demand services. Despite historical underinvestment, Westside residents have mobilized to enhance their neighborhoods, and the City has begun to respond. These efforts, both grassroots and institutional, point to the area’s untapped potential. 46 SLC West East CONNECTIONS This page has intentionally been left blank SLC West East CONNECTIONS Problem Statement 1 PROBLEM STATEMENT Mobility plays a big role in Salt Lake City’s economy and quality of life. It helps people get to jobs, homes, schools, and places to have fun. A strong transportation system is closely tied to a successful community. Transportation infrastructure influences how and where people go, which impacts development and investment trends. The way roads, buses, and other transportation options are built and maintained affects where people go and how neighborhoods grow. What is a Problem Statement? The WE Connect Foundation Report highlights the impacts of major infrastructure barriers such as I-15 and the railroad. While the challenges of the West-East Divide may be familiar to residents who regularly traverse the city, a formally defined and publicly endorsed definition of the problem ensures that proposed solutions remain focused, relevant, and aligned with community needs. This problem statement will be the foundation for evaluating and screening solutions in the next phase of the project. How was the Problem Statement prepared? The problem statement reflects public sentiment and synthesizes findings from past studies in the area, guiding the development of project goals and objectives. It will also support the identification, screening, and prioritization of potential solutions. The problem statement was developed through community engagement including the May 2025 public event, stakeholder meetings, a survey of over 1,000 participants, contributions from the Community Advisory Board and Technical Advisory Committee, previous plans and studies, and the WE Connect Foundation Report. These problems are grouped into the following categories: How will the Problem Statement be used? The problem statement outlines key issues to be addressed by the West-East Connections Study. It will inform data collection during the “Existing Conditions” phase, helping to identify both community concerns and data-driven challenges that the study aims to address. It will also guide the development of project goals and objectives and inform the screening and prioritization of potential solutions. Together, the problem statement and existing conditions analysis will help identify actionable problems, grounded in both public input and technical data, that the WE Connect process can work to solve. ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY Pathways to jobs, schools, training, and economic resources TRAVEL CHOICE Variety of reliable and accessible transportation options SAFETY AND PUBLIC HEALTH Conditions for safe travel and healthy lives COMMUNITY VIBRANCY Quality of life, spaces, and resources SLC West East CONNECTIONS Problem Statement 2 TRAVEL CHOICE — PROBLEM STATEMENT Getting around Salt Lake City between the westside and other parts of the city is hard. The railroad corridor, unpredictable train activity and I-15 block the way, and there aren’t enough options for people walking, riding a bicycle, or taking transit. Freedom to move shapes people’s connection to community and economic opportunity. In Salt Lake City, barriers created by I-15 and the railroad corridor limit reliable travel opportunities for people moving east to west, add uncertainty to many trips, and expose travelers to unsafe and uncomfortable conditions. Rail gates drop 30 to 100 times per day at at-grade crossings, requiring people to wait, divert, and reconsider travel paths. Westside residents and travelers experience the impacts of the east-west “divide” in many ways. They... 1. Take risks to save time – Blocked intersections and long train delays lead some pedestrians to take unsafe actions, like climbing between train cars or navigating tracks on wheels, putting lives at risk rather than face rerouting or waiting for a train to clear the intersection.6 2. Find it hard to get around without a car – UTA does not generally operate buses on streets with at-grade rail crossings, meaning west-to-east bus routes are limited. In addition, reliable bicycle and pedestrian crossings are limited to overpasses, many of which are at freeway interchanges or passing through unlit, unprotected spaces that do not feel secure.7 3. Travel farther to basic needs, jobs, goods, services, and recreation – Many Westside residents need to travel to the eastside to access grocery stores, shopping, and parks, among other destinations. Almost 40% of WE Connect survey respondents indicate the westside does not have the goods and services they need.8 4. Feel limited in their choices – Over 50%, more than 500 responses, of WE Connect Community Survey respondents say they have made choices about where to live, work, go to school, shop, or recreate because of the west-east divide.9 6. Community event graphic recorder summary; WE Connect Community Survey Summary, page 12; WE Connect Foundation Report, page 34. 7. WE Connect Foundation Report, pages 19-27; WE Connect Community Survey Summary, pages 14 and 21-22. 8. WE Connect Community Survey Summary, pages 11 and 15-17; WE Connect Foundation Report, pages 41-42. 9. WE Connect Community Survey Summary, page 7. SLC West East CONNECTIONS Problem Statement 3 HEALTH AND SAFETY — PROBLEM STATEMENT Westside neighborhoods face health and safety problems, like bad air, difficult street and railroad crossings, and poor access to care. These issues make life harder and less healthy. Environmental and infrastructure conditions on the Westside contribute to disproportionate health and safety risks, pedestrian fatalities, and exposure to pollutants. Without targeted investments in clean air, safe streets, and accessible care, the well-being of Westside communities will remain compromised. Westside residents and travelers experience the impacts of the east-west “divide” in many ways. They... 1. Worry about air pollution – Car-centered infrastructure and frequent vehicle idling worsen air quality, contributing to respiratory issues, especially for children and older adults.10 2. Are stressed by the unpredictability – Unreliable travel times increase daily stress, reduce time with family, and make it harder to access healthcare, jobs, and other essentials.11 3. Avoid walking or bicycling on the Westside or traveling to areas outside of Westside neighborhoods – Poor lighting, lack of protected paths or bikeways, and confusing or unsafe crossings discourage active transportation, limiting healthy movement and increasing reliance on cars.12 4. Worry that emergency services might not reach them in time – Traffic congestion and blocked crossings can delay emergency response times, putting residents at greater risk during critical health or safety incidents. Emergency services, including police, fire, and ambulance, plan their routes differently to navigate railroad crossings.13 10. WE Connect Foundation Report, pages 32-33. 11. Community event graphic recorder summary; WE Connect Community Survey Summary, page 20-23. 12. WE Connect Foundation Report, pages 19-21, 25, and 34; Community event graphic recorder summary; WE Connect Community Survey Summary, page 18-20. 13. WE Connect Foundation Report, page 34; Focus Group Meeting Summary and Notes Discussions held June 18-26, 2025, Emergency Services. SLC West East CONNECTIONS Problem Statement 4 ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY – PROBLEM STATEMENT People living on the Westside face more challenges getting to jobs, schools, and training because of barriers like I-15 and unpredictable train activity. These barriers make it harder for them to access opportunities within their community. The physical divide created by I-15 and the rail corridors has deepened demographic and workforce disparities between the Westside and the rest of the city. These mobility barriers limit access to employment, education, training, and professional networks. As a result, Westside residents face reduced job opportunities, longer commutes, and fewer pathways to economic advancement. These conditions reinforce cycles of poverty, hinder workforce participation, and contribute to demographic stagnation and out-migration. Westside residents and travelers experience the impacts of the east-west “divide” in many ways. They... 1. Have trouble accessing good-paying jobs – Limited east-west transit options make it harder to access employment centers, especially for those without a car, reducing job choices and income potential.1 2. Spend more time traveling and less time with family – Long, unpredictable travel times cut into personal time, strain family responsibilities, and reduce quality of life.2 3. Experience disruptions to work and business operations – Unpredictable train traffic delays employees, disrupts deliveries, and creates uncertainty for local businesses trying to serve their communities.3 4. Miss training and education opportunities – Barriers to reaching schools, job training programs, and higher education institutions limit skill development and career advancement.4 5. Feel disconnected from the city’s economic growth – While other areas benefit from continued growth and higher concentrations of commercial activity, Westside residents often feel left behind due to physical and economic isolation.5 1. CAB #3 summary, page 5; WE Connect Foundation Report, page 12. 2. WE Connect Foundation Report, page 18; WE Connect Community Survey Summary, page 20. 3. WE Connect Foundation Report, page 18; Community event graphic recorder summary; WE Connect Community Survey Summary, pages 18-19. 4. WE Connect Community Survey Summary, page 7; WE Connect Foundation Report, page 10. 5. WE Connect Foundation Report, page 43; WE Connect Community Survey Summary, pages 15-17. SLC West East CONNECTIONS Problem Statement 5 COMMUNITY VIBRANCY — PROBLEM STATEMENT Westside neighborhoods offer fewer housing options and have seen less investment in public and private spaces over time. These challenges can make it harder for residents to thrive and take full pride in their surroundings, despite the strong sense of community that historically exists. Westside communities are split by North Temple and I-80 into two disconnected, predominantly single-family neighborhoods. While relatively affordable compared to Salt Lake City overall, these areas suffer from limited housing diversity, a lack of quality public spaces, and dispersed community assets. These conditions have made neighborhoods less livable, less equitable, and more vulnerable to displacement. Residents face barriers to accessing childcare, healthcare, and other essential services — including delayed emergency response due to blocked railroad crossings. The lack of access to resources has reinforced economic divides, limited mobility, increased social isolation, and contributed to a decline in community pride. Westside residents and travelers experience the impacts of the east-west “divide” in many ways. They... 1. Struggle to find homes that fit needs and budgets – A lack of diverse housing options and limited room for new development accelerates gentrification, displacement and disrupts intergenerational stability.14 2. Feel cut off from the rest of the city – Limited transportation options and infrastructure barriers reduce access to jobs, services, and social connections.15 3. Find it harder to access healthcare, education, and opportunities – Disparities in access to essential services affect health outcomes, economic mobility, and quality of life. School buses must plan their routes differently to navigate railroad crossings.16 4. Feel like their neighborhoods are overlooked – Underinvestment in public infrastructure hinders the success of local small businesses, weakening the neighborhood culture, identity, and sense of pride.17 14. WE Connect Foundation Report, pages 39-40. 15. Community event graphic recorder summary; WE Connect Foundation Report, pages 12 and 27. 16. Focus Group Meeting Summary and Notes Discussions held June 18-26, 2025, SLC Schools – Transportation; WE Connect Foundation Report, pages 12 and 27. 17. WE Connect Community Survey Summary, page 20; WE Connect Foundation Report, page 11. This page has intentionally been left blank Goals and Objectives DRAFT 2 Goals and Objectives Goals and Objectives Introduction HOW WERE THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES PREPARED? The goals and objectives build upon the problem statement, utilizing the community engagement, including the May 2025 public event, stakeholder meetings, a survey of over 1,000 participants, contributions from the Community Advisory Board and Technical Advisory Committee, previous plans and studies, and the WE Connect Foundation Report. The goals and objectives were organized using our four planning themes: Travel Choice, Health and Wellness, Access to Opportunity, and Community Vibrancy. 3 Goals and Objectives HOW WILL THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES BE USED? The goals and objectives set a comprehensive guide for the next steps in the West-East Connections Study. Goals provide a long-term aspiration, informing what we ultimately aim to achieve, while objectives provide more specific milestones that address individual aspects of the goals, ensuring progress is made in a structured way. These goals and objectives will direct the data collection efforts during the “Existing and Future Conditions” phase, aiding in the identification of both community concerns and data-driven challenges that the study aims to tackle. Additionally, they will play a crucial role in informing the screening and prioritization of potential solutions, ensuring that chosen interventions are well- aligned with the strategic vision and specific gaps or needs identified. Together, the goals and objectives, along with the existing and future conditions analysis, will highlight key gaps, enabling the formulation of actionable solutions into a ‘playbook’ that effectively addresses both the immediate and long-term goals of the community. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Planning Theme: Travel Choices Goal: Enhance access to essential services and destinations by strengthening all travel options, improving safety, and reducing disruptions and unpredictability. 1. Reduce unpredictable and lengthy delays caused by at-grade railroad crossings for vehicles, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians 2. Improve safety at railroad and interstate crossings 3. Fill in bicycle and pedestrian network gaps 4. Enhance the safety of active transportation (people walking, rolling, or riding a bicycle) 5. Improve transit frequency, speed, reliability, and coverage 6. Enhance connections for people walking, rolling, or riding a bicycle to transit stops 7. Upgrade transit stop amenities to be consistent with those citywide 8. Make riding a bicycle, walking, rolling, or using transit reliable and convenient options for accessing community destinations Planning Theme: Health and Wellness Goal: Reduce the negative health and wellness impacts of transportation infrastructure. 1. Promote personal security and comfort on public transportation 2. Encourage people to walk, ride a bicycle, and use transit to lower emissions, improving air quality and user health 4 Goals and Objectives 3. Reduce emergency vehicle response time 4. Improve access to health care services 5. Limit pollution (noise, air, and light) caused by transportation Planning Theme: Access to Opportunity Goal: Promote economic and workforce opportunities through transportation 1. Stabilize and promote local businesses 2. Leverage infrastructure to catalyze economic development 3. Expand opportunities for education, job training, and social services Planning Theme: Community Vibrancy Goal: Encourage housing options and public spaces that promote and support the community. 1. Expand quality affordable and attainable housing options 2. Ensure convenient access to public spaces and community services 3. Establish integrated activity centers that improve quality and availability of social, cultural, and community spaces This page has intentionally been left blank COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Allison Rowland, Senior Policy Analyst DATE:November 25, 2025 RE: GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FOR PARKS, TRAILS, AND OPEN SPACE – FIRST ISSUANCE UPDATE AND SECOND ISSUANCE FUNDING REQUEST FOLLOW-UP ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE In the May 13, 2025, Work Session, the Council requested a revised version of the Administration’s update on projects funded by the first issuance of the Parks, Trails, and Open Space General Obligation Bond for Parks, Trails, and Open Space (GO Bond Series 2022), and on the request for the second issuance. Council Members had a number of questions about the increased scale and number of projects that would be added to the Department’s workload. The Council also asked about taking time for more progress on existing projects before approving the second issuance of bond funds. The Administration followed up with an October 24 transmittal that provides additional information and requests that the Council indicate its support for one of the three “second tranche funding scenarios” detailed in the transmittal. The options presented include their previous proposal, plus two variations on it. See section B for additional information on the scenarios. -Scenario 1: $26.2 million. This option would have the lowest impact on property taxes but includes construction on Glendale Park Phase 2 only. It would use $870,400 for bond-funded employees in the Departments of Public Lands and Public Services includes $2 million in contingency funding. -Scenario 2: $38.0 million. This is essentially the proposal DPL presented in spring 2025, but with the addition of $3M in contingency funds and several other minor changes. -Scenario 3: $49.3 million. This would include funding for nearly all of the remaining project phases, leaving approximately $11 million for a third and final tranche of the bond. The Department of Public Lands requests that the Council authorize one of the scenarios before the end of the year to allow the Finance Department to prepare a transmittal to authorize the second issuance of bond funds. sThe process would include a January budget amendment so that bond proceeds could be spent immediately following the bond sale in April or May 2026. As a reminder, residents and businesses begin to pay an increased level of property tax for bond repay only after each issuance is approved by the Council. Item Schedule: Page | 2 Goal of the briefing: Receive information and provide feedback to the Administration on both the progress made with the first tranche of GO Bond funding, and the proposals for using the second tranche. ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION A.Progress since the May 13 Briefing. The Department has planned to divide the $85 million GO Bond approved in 2022 into three or more tranches, as staffing and logistics permit, in order to minimize the amount of property tax charged to property owners. In FY24 Budget Amendment #2, the Council approved nearly $24.7 million in the revised first tranche of bond funding. This included $18.8 available for first tranche projects and $5.9 million for contingencies. The “contingencies” category included not only project contingency funds, but also funding for public art, plus the salaries, benefits, and operational costs for three temporary full-time employees (FTEs) for the first three fiscal years of the GO Bond. (Staff note: staffing costs are not typically funded by bonds although in this case they are allowed as they are closely tied to projects specifically outlined in the bond that was approved by voters). In its current transmittal, the Department reports accelerating progress over the past six months: the share of the first tranche’s $24.7 million that has been spent or encumbered rose from 8% to 33% of the total (from about $2.0 million to $8.2 million). This reflects the pattern that DPL described in the previous briefing: Spending on each project starts slowly, with engagement and planning processes, but accelerates as construction gets underway and contracts are signed. The Department also notes that “The pace of first tranche spending slowed in September 2024 as the City prioritized timely use of Parks Impact Fees at Glendale Park and may have slowed again in mid-2025 when the issuance of the second tranche was delayed” (see page 3 for detail). By July 2026, however, 70% of first tranche funding is likely to be encumbered or spent. The image below summarizes the progress of individual GO Bond-funded projects. More detailed information on each project can be found in attachments C1 and C2. Page | 3 GO Bond Progress Report, Updated November 13, 2025 Summaries of the work already completed (or soon to be completed) with first tranche funding, which was authorized in October 2023, appear in Attachments C1 and C2. The attachments include updated information on scopes, costs, and possible schedules for projects that may be funded by the second tranche of the bond and are planned to be completed in the next three to five years. The October 2025 transmittal also identifies four general impacts of effectively having delayed the issuance of the second tranche to April or May 2026. 1. It slowed some projects’ design and/or construction phases, along with first tranche spending. 2. The Department indicates that because the second tranche would be issued outside of the FY26 budget cycle (when property tax rates were set), its debt service costs in December 2026 (FY27), will be higher because December’s payment will combine June and December’s interest. (Staff note: Potential changes in interest rates are generally considered to have a greater effect on overall bond repayment costs than the timing of the bond issuance relative to the City budget cycle.) 3. If issuance and funding availability are delayed until FY27, it may jeopardize the City’s ability to use bond proceeds to refund the General Fund for the salaries, benefits, and operational costs of three employees dedicated to the GO Bond and funded by the first tranche until the end of FY26. This could include retention incentives, raises, and/or reclassifications for two FTEs in Public Lands and one in Public Services. 4. Issuance of the third tranche may be unavoidably delayed. DPL had planned for the third tranche to be issued in Fall 2026 and to include funding for the 2027 and 2028 construction of Fairmont Park Page | 4 and Fleet Block Public Open Space improvements. To avoid delays to those and other projects, the Administration suggests that the Council could choose: a. Scenario #3 (see section B below), or b. Scenarios #1 or #2, plus issue the third tranche by October 2026. However, if the remainder of the bond is issued in a third tranche, also in 2026, DPL notes that it would concentrate potential property tax increases (rather than spreading them out over several years) and could increase scrutiny of previous issuances and rates of expenditures by lenders during the third tranche’s due diligence. B.Choices for the Council. The Department of Public Lands developed three scenarios for GO Bond-funded projects to reflect approval for issuance of the second tranche by December 2025. The Department has requested that the Council select the scenario it prefers among these three, although the Council has no obligation to approve any of them. (A strawpoll would be sufficient to indicate support.) Some Council Members have voiced concern about shifts in current economic conditions. In addition, a number of other City, School District, and County taxes and fees have increased since the original GO Bond vote. Staff can provide more information on legal options if the Council is interested. Also note that Scenario 2 is the same as the Department’s proposal last spring, aside from the addition of $3 million in contingency funds. DPL explained that increase this way: “While we still intend to spend interest revenue and first tranche contingency funds first, a few factors now necessitate the inclusion of some bond contingency in the second tranche: the delay of the second tranche, an expected reduction in the rate of interest revenue accrual for the first tranche’s balance over the next 18 months due to the increase in our spending, and now the uncertainty of the timeline for the issuance of the third tranche (which would otherwise contain the remainder of the bond contingency funds). […] The three second tranche scenarios include only necessary supplemental contingency funds (roughly 8% of the project subtotal) in addition to interest revenue and remaining first tranche contingency funds.” Either way, the Department’s goal is for the Administration to include a selection of items and budgets in a January 2026 Budget Amendment, making funds available to spend as soon as the bond closes in April or May 2026. DPL notes that the Council’s delay in authorizing the second tranche of funding will be reflected in some project timelines, and that the extent of the delay depends on which scenario is chosen. A brief summary of each of the three scenarios can be found below; a more detailed summary can be found in Attachment C1. Scenario 1: Second tranche of $26,220,400. This scenario would have the lowest impact on property taxes but includes finishing only work on Glendale Park Phase 2. It would also use $870,400 for Bond-funded full-time DPL and Public Services employees, to update salary amounts in line with market rates for two additional fiscal years which were not funded by the first tranche. It would also include $2 million in contingency funding. The Department added that the third tranche would need to be issued by October 2026 to avoid construction delays of 12 to 18 months. Also, amenities would need to be reduced to account for increased costs for the remaining project phases. DPL notes that one risk to choosing Scenario 1 is that if the Sunnyside Park Construction is delayed to the third tranche, the City would face a higher chance of failing to meet the stipulation within the $4.2 million donation agreement with the University of Utah that requires this project to be completed by July 2027. In response to a Council staff question, DPL noted acknowledged that: “If Scenario #1 is selected, adding the remaining $675,000 from the GO Bond for Sunnyside Park (for $750,000 total in GO Bond funding) would help the City Page | 5 construct its preferred design by July 2027, and avoid missing the donation agreement’s deadline and potentially losing donated funds.” Scenario 2: Second tranche of $37,986,400. This is essentially the proposal that DPL presented in Spring 2025 to fund nearly $35 million in additional project phases, including the next stage of Glendale Park, and new investments in Allen Park, the Jordan River Corridor, along with smaller parks, trails, and open space projects in each Council district. It would also add $3 million in contingency funds. As in Scenario 1, the Department states that the third tranche would need to be issued by October 2026 to avoid construction delays of 12 to 18 months. Also, amenities would need to be reduced to account for increased costs for the remaining project phases. Scenario 3: Second tranche of $49,336,400. This would include all the projects in Scenario 2, plus construction (rather than just preparatory work) at Fleet Block, Fairmont Park, the Peace Labyrinth, and the remaining Jordan River projects. It would also add $3 million in contingency funds. However, construction timelines would likely be pushed into 2028 or 2029, and amenities would need to be reduced to account for increased costs, if this is issued in 2027. C.Council Requested Changes. During the Spring briefing and in other conversations, Council Members and staff have inquired about the possibility of moving projects in a different order or timeline. The Council may wish to ask about any specific projects that could be shifted to accommodate community priorities. Given the current financial circumstances, the Council may also wish to ask about the possibility of pursuing future bond rounds differently, for example, by planning to issue a greater number of tranches, each with a smaller group of projects. In response to a staff question about the feasibility of accelerating work on certain neighborhood parks (apart from Sunnyside Park), or rearranging the pace and order proposed by DPL should the Council wish to do so, DPL responded the following: “At this point, rearranging the pace and order of neighborhood park project implementation is likely either not possible or not advisable. Planning, engagement, and design phases for many of these projects are already complete or nearly complete, with a dozen going out to bid for construction within the next six months. Delaying construction of these and planning and design of other projects would impact public expectations of 2026 implementation, slow spending of first tranche funding, potentially compromise contracts with or increase costs of design consultants, and reduce the impact and quantity/quality of amenities due to increasing construction costs each year.” D.Proposed Schedule. DPL and the Finance Department propose the following schedule for authorization of the second tranche of GO Bond. On this timeline, bond-related increases in property tax bills would be reflected in the property tax assessments later in 2026. November- December 2025: City Council chooses one of three scenarios, or an amended alternative, followed by the Finance Department’s final total transmittal. January 2026: Consideration of a budget amendment to allow bond proceeds to be spent immediately following the bond sale in April or May 2026. Early February 2026: Bond transaction briefings, adopt bond parameters resolution Early April 2026: Bond sale and pricing. Late April or early May 2026: Bond closing, proceeds can be spent immediately. Page | 6 E.Operations and Maintenance. During the spring briefing on the second tranche of the GO Bond, the Council requested information on how DPL is balancing the demands of all the new capital projects with the day-to-day challenges of asset replacement and maintenance across its properties. In the transmittal, the Department stated in response that “these priorities are often complimentary and rarely zero-sum.” The transmittal acknowledges that all new assets, including those funded by the GO Bond, will require ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) funding, but also points out that there is a close relationship between O&M funding and the GO Bond funded improvements, since 75% of these improvements will replace existing park assets. For that reason, completing these projects allows maintenance crews to focus their time and resources on daily needs rather than trying to maintain assets that are simply beyond their useful lives. Similarly, DPL estimates that more than 50% of all Public Lands capital projects are entirely or mostly asset replacement projects. To help provide information on progress on asset replacement and maintenance challenges in FY26, the Department intends to update its 2023 document on key operational challenges associated with this process. Meanwhile, for each new project, the Department plans to estimate the O&M activities and costs during the design and construction phases. These will be provided for review in future annual budget cycles. 1.Funding Deferred Maintenance. Each year since 2018, the City has allocated $250,000 to address “deferred maintenance” across the Public Lands system. The Department uses these amounts for the most urgent repairs, which are identified in asset management system, Cartegraph. 2.Funding Operations. In FY23, the City began to allocate $2,000,000 annually from the Funding Our Future (FOF) half-cent sales tax to improve parks maintenance. This was intended to eventually fund the maintenance of GO Bond projects as they come online. The Department noted in the transmittal, however, that “Once all GO Bond-funded projects are complete, it is likely that net O&M budget needs for those projects will exceed $2,000,000 annually.” F.New Capital Projects and Asset Replacements. DPL reports that the Department is managing a greater number—and larger—projects than ever before. It is also completing more capital projects: 12 to 15 per year, versus 4 to 5 per year previously. There are also currently over 60 capital projects managed by or requiring significant involvement from the Public Lands Department’s Planning & Design Division. This number does not increase by issuing the second and future tranches of the bond. Unlike the Department’s deferred maintenance funds from the annual operating budget, which are focused on short-term fixes, there is no dedicated funding source for capital asset replacement. The transmittal notes the following additional information on these projects. 54% of all projects—and 75% of GO Bond-funded projects—are entirely or mostly asset replacements, defined as major repairs or replacements of existing assets in existing properties that allow O&M staff to focus on daily needs instead of performing costly, time-intensive maintenance of assets that are beyond their useful life. 32% of all projects—and 25% of GO Bond-funded projects—are entirely or mostly new assets. New assets are funded by Parks Impact Fees or the General Fund and meet the demands of population growth. 12% are planning and design-only projects, which include Citywide, strategic, and site- specific planning and/or design projects that do not necessarily include construction. Page | 7 In addition, the Department reports that their approved FY26 CIP projects focused primarily on replacing aging or failing assets (10 of the 14 projects). Three of the four remaining projects are entirely or mostly new assets, including event infrastructure, playground shade, and the Green Loop. Still the CIP projects help reduce pressure on heavily used parks, and extend the lifespan of existing infrastructure. G.Strategic Capital, Acquisition, and Asset Management Plan (SCAAMP). The Department of Public Lands intends to complete its new strategic capital plan in 2026 to help the City understand all of its public land needs, and budget accordingly. The plan, which will inform the citywide Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP), and be the Department’s element of the broader citywide Capital Asset Plan (CAP), will lay out annual capital needs for existing asset replacement, as well new assets and properties, for each of the next 10 years. It will allow the department to begin prioritizing asset replacements at a programmatic level. Until then, DPL states that it will continue to leverage both the Capital Improvement Program and GO Bond funding to address capital asset replacement needs alongside the development of new public amenities. Policy Question: The Council may wish to discuss with the Department how it can provide policy feedback on future budget prioritization to inform the SCAAMP and—to the extent that the Department can separate out those policy and budget priorities— those could be adopted by the Council to provide predictability for the Department in future years. H.Management Changes and Additional Requests. Project management of parks, trails, and open space capital projects is now handled primarily by the Public Lands Planning & Design Division’s landscape architects and planners. This shift was facilitated by the transfer of landscape architects to the Department in October 2023 and the creation of DPL’s Planning & Design Division in March 2024. Contracting, procurement, invoicing, and construction management roles and authorities still reside in the Architecture and Construction Management (ACM) Division of the Public Services Department. In the FY26 budget, the Engineering Division (except for ACM) was moved from Public Services to CAN. This move also shifted Engineering’s previous roles and authority on Public Lands’ projects to ACM. As part of the second tranche of the GO bond, the Public Lands Department proposes two staffing changes for existing FTEs: 1.Reclassification to Senior Landscape Architect. The Department of Public Lands requests that the Council approve a reclassification from Associate Landscape Architect II (Grade 29) to Senior Landscape Architect (Grade 34) to reflect the qualifications and experience of the project manager hired in this role. According to DPL, “Further reclassification would align their qualifications, job description, and pay. We wish to retain these time-limited staff for as much of the remainder of the Parks GO Bond as possible.” The costs included in the proposed second tranche total assume these changes are approved by the Council. 2.Funding Increase for Three FTEs. Since July 1, 2023, the salaries, benefits, and operational costs for three full-time employees who work exclusively on Parks GO Bond projects have been reimbursed with bond funds at the beginning of the following fiscal year. However, the estimates for these personnel costs were developed in early 2023 and were initially very conservative. Some savings in the first tranche will continue to fund their personnel costs into FY27, and the second tranche will fund the remainder of that fiscal year and the entirety of FY28. The Department proposes that an estimated $296,000 balance from the first tranche go toward reducing the second tranche’s FY27 and FY28 salary, benefits, and operation costs for these employees. Page | 8 Policy Question: The Council may wish to ask the DPL what the consequences of not approving these staffing changes would be, should funding be unavailable in the coming year’s budget. I.Arts Council Request Withdrawn. Last spring, the Arts Council requested for $75,000 (7%) of the total $1,035,000/1.5% for art from the Parks GO Bond to fund salary and equipment for a part-time position to manage bond-funded art projects. The Arts Council has since withdrawn its request and chosen instead to take advantage of “the opportunities to restructure projects to better align with available capacity and avoid delays to non-bond-funded public art commissions.” J.Improving Public Awareness. DPL reports that beginning this fall, the Department is “improving awareness of the status of projects funded by the GO Bond among the public and Council by undertaking the following: 1.Creating a Parks GO Bond newsletter with project information for each district; 2.Adding signage at all “Reimagine Neighborhood Park” projects with information about scopes, designs, and construction timelines; and 3.Re-establishing monthly, recurring meetings previously held with City Council staff and leadership to discuss project progress and the Council’s and Administrations needs surrounding these projects.” Page | 8 ATTACHMENTS Attachment C1. Summary of Second Tranche Options. Attachment C2. Updated Progress on First Tranche Activities and Plans for Second Tranche. Attachment C3. Updated Progress on First Tranche Activities and Plans for Second Tranche: Neighborhood Parks, Trails, and Open Spaces Projects. Attachment C1. Summary of Second Tranche Options. Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Scenario #3 $26,220,400 $37,986,400 $49,336,400 Tax Burden: ~$13-$14 / year, for a median valued ($576,000) primary residence Tax Burden: ~$19-$20 / year, for a median valued ($576,000) primary residence Tax Burden: ~$25-$26 / year, for a median valued ($576,000) primary residence (less than half the maximum potential impact ($54.80) listed on the ballot and the Voter Information Pamphlet in 2022) Includes:Includes, in addition to everything in Scenario 1:Includes, in addition to everything in Scenario 2: Glendale Park Phase 2 Construction Allen Park Phase 1 Construction ($3,650,000)Fleet Block Public Open Space Construction ($4,500,000) Bond-funded FTE salaries, benefits, and operational costs, plus a reclassification of one Associate Landscape Architect II position in DPL to a Senior Landscape Architect position. Fleet Block Public Open Space Construction Docs, Remediation, Permitting, Prep Infrastructure ($900,000) Fairmont Park Construction ($5,850,000) Warm Springs & North Gateway Parks Construction ($1,350,000) Public Art Commissions at Fleet Block and Warm Springs/North Gateway Parks ($441,000) Sunnyside Park Construction ($675,000) Jefferson Park Construction ($675,000) Jordan River Corridor’s First High-Profile Projects’ Construction Docs and Construction ($2,400,000) Cottonwood Park Construction ($675,000) Contingency: $2,000,000 Contingency: $3,000,000 Contingency: $3,000,000 Drawbacks and Impacts:Drawbacks and Impacts:Drawbacks and Impacts: Funds only Glendale Park’s Phase 2 construction Third tranche must be issued by October 2026 to avoid 12-18 month construction delays and fewer amenities due to increased costs for the following projects: This is the most expensive of the three scenarios Third tranche must be issued by October 2026 to avoid 12-18 month construction delays and fewer amenities due to increased costs for the following project phases: Fairmont Park $11,003,600 would be left for a third tranche, with construction timelines pushed likely to 2028 or 2029 and fewer amenities due to increased costs, if issued in 2027: Allen Park Construction Fleet Block Public Open Space and Art Commission Peace Labyrinth Construction Fairmont Park Peace Labyrinth Jordan River Remaining Projects Construction Fleet Block Public Open Space Construction Remaining Jordan River projects All Remaining Contingency Warm Springs & North Gateway Parks Construction All Remaining Personnel Costs (Salaries, Benefits, Ops.) Public Art Commissions at Fleet Block and Warm Springs/North Gateway Parks Cottonwood Park Construction., Dog Park Bridge Repair Jefferson Park Construction Jordan River Corridor Projects Construction Sunnyside Park Construction Potential forfeiture of $4.2M from the University of Utah for Sunnyside Park project if City fails to complete the project by July 2027. Attachment C2. Updated Progress on First Tranche Activities and Plans for Second Tranche. First Tranche Progress Second Tranche Plans / Requests Glendale Park, $27 million total - The grand opening for Phase 1 is scheduled for December 6, 2025. Construction for Phase 1 is nearing completion (entire park’s parking lot; all ages and abilities playground; welcome plaza; seating areas; food truck plaza; pavilion; full court basketball; open lawn; trail connections and walkways; entry gate and signs; and significant stormwater infrastructure enhancements). - Twelve new pickleball courts opened in August 2025; the four existing tennis courts remain in use. - Finish design for and construct Phase 2, the larger of the two phases. - Includes an enhanced splash park; Jordan River corridor access and boat ramp; enhancements, sledding hill; skating ribbon and skate park; additional trails including soft surface for walking and hiking; additional open lawn and events stage. - Phase 2 construction will likely occur between 2026 and 2028. Request: $23,350,000. Liberty Park Playground, $2 million total - Construction began on new Rotary Play Park in September 2025. Early phases of construction, including demolition, underground utility installation, and more, have been completed. - All funding comes from the first tranche. n/a Allen Park, $4.5 million total - Emergency repairs and installation of new utilities will be underway in coming weeks. Park will be closed in late November 2025 for several months for new water and sewer lines. - Phase 1 project design consultant was selected. Design will be led by Public Lands, in coordination with the Engineering Division, and Public Utilities. - Build Phase 1 improvements, with construction beginning as early as 2026, lasting 1-2 years. - Public Utilities may contribute additional stormwater funding. Request: $3,650,000. Folsom Trail Completion & Landscaping, $5 million total - Finalization of design, construction of amenities and waterwise landscaping between 500 West and 1000 West. Construction will begin in early 2026. These improvements were delayed because of unanticipated roadblocks: the need for additional construction, and document refinement for more impactful and cost-effective outcomes. -Completion of the Folsom Trail between 1000 West and the Jordan River will likely occur in the public rights-of-way of 1000 West and 200 South (the backup alignment alternative). Discussions with 2 property owners, from whom the City needed easements or acquisitions, were unfruitful. - More detailed construction documents will now be developed for the new alignment. Construction in 2027 and 2028. n/a Public Open Space at Fleet Block, $6 million total - Community engagement and conceptual design are beginning, in coordination with the site’s public art commission. Final design concept to be finished in early 2026. - CAN selected two site developers for the NE and NW quadrants of the block and proceeding in their agreements and design at the same time as DPL. - Additional remediation, community benefits agreements and other developer agreements to take place in 2026-2029, along with development and construction on the block. - Construction documents to be finalized in 2026. - Permitting, potential environment remediation, and potential related infrastructure within and near the site. Request: $900,000. Page | 12 Fairmont Park, $6.5 million total - Total funding includes both $5 million as a stand-alone project and an additional $1.5 million from the Neighborhood Parks, Trails and Open Spaces project. - In early 2025, community engagement, design, construction documents, and initial SITES certification tasks began. - Projects under consideration include: repair of, or possible new public uses for, the existing tennis courts site on the corner of Sugarmont Avenue and 900 East; possible improvement of the area near the Boys & Girls Club clubhouse; revitalizing and creating an improved entrance to Fairmont Park along Sugarmont Drive; and enhancing public access and safety in the park. - DPL hopes to begin construction in 2027, pending inclusion of the remaining $5,850,000 in the second tranche. If it is not, most of the GO Bond’s funding for this project would be requested in a third tranche, potentially delaying the project’s construction. Request: $5,850,000 Neighborhood Parks, Trails, or Open Spaces, $9 million total - The first tranche of $4.95 million includes at least one project per Council District, with a maximum price of $1,500,000 each. -See Attachment C3, below, for updates on individual projects in this category. - Second tranche funding would include the remainder of GO Bond funding allocated to: o Warm Springs & North Gateway Parks - $1,350,000. o Sunnyside Park - $675,000. o Jefferson Park - $675,000. Request: $3,375,000. Jordan River Corridor, $9 million total - First tranche funding of $1.1 million ($600,000 originally, plus $500,000 added through a September 2024 Budget Amendment): o supplemented community engagement for the 2025 Emerald Ribbon Action Plan; o helped fund construction of the “Backman Community Open Space and Outdoor Classroom” project, completed on November 20, 2025; and o funded the development of construction documents for high priority projects. - Final construction document development for projects not covered by existing funds and construct the first high-profile and/or high- impact projects in 2026 through 2028. Request $2,400,000. Other, $16 million total Includes Project Contingencies, Public Art, and Salaries, Benefits, and Operational Costs - First tranche funding of $5.86 million has: o helped keep Glendale Park, Allen Park, and Liberty Park Playground on schedule; o allowed the City to purchase equipment and replace the Jefferson Park playground; o initiate and continue to fund several public art commissions in bond-funded sites; and o paid full-time employees since July 2023. - Any additional contingency funds would come from GO Bond interest revenue and first- tranche contingency funds. Page | 12 Page | 13 Attachment C3. Updated Progress on First Tranche Activities and Plans for Second Tranche: Neighborhood Parks, Trails, and Open Spaces Projects. First Tranche Progress Second Tranche Plans / Requests Donner Trail Park (D6), $750,000 total - Public engagement wrapped up in 2024; design and permitting are now complete. Construction will begin in early 2026. - The focus will be on public infrastructure refreshes, reducing turf and water use in passive areas, improving irrigation systems, updating playgrounds, planting trees, and introducing public art. - Full project allocation from GO Bond was funded: $750,000. n/a Taufer Park (D4), $750,000 total - Public engagement is complete, and design is underway. Construction will begin in 2026. - Full project allocation from GO Bond was funded: $750,000. n/a Richmond Park (D4), $750,000 total - Public engagement is complete, and design is underway. Construction will begin in 2026 and extend into 2027. DPL intends to stagger the construction of Taufer and Richmond Parks. - Full project allocation from GO Bond was funded: $750,000. n/a Steenblik Park (D1), $750,000 total - Construction documents, permitting, and bidding are complete. Construction may begin in late 2025 or 2026. - Full project allocation from GO Bond was funded: $750,000. n/a Cottonwood Park (D1), $750,000 total - First tranche funding ($75,000, or 10% of the planned GO bond budget for this park) may result in detailed design and construction documents in 2026. - The delay is due to uncertainty regarding the finalization and Council approval of the Emerald Ribbon Action Plan. Beginning of construction in 2026 and 2027. Request: $675,000 Additional funding from several sources will be combined for this project, which has a key role in the Emerald Ribbon Action Plan. Warm Springs and North Gateway Parks (D3), $1,500,000 total - Design work on this project ($150,000, or 10% of planned GO bond funding for this park) has been suspended temporarily while the Mayor’s Office works to build relationships with tribal governments. The goal is to engage and empower local, indigenous, and Pacific Islander communities, in addition to other communities, who are interested in the possible future improvements to and long-term operations. Development of construction documents, and construction, may occur in 2026 or 2027. Pursue the consolidation of the two parks, both through ordinance and design. Request: $1,350,000 Ida Cotten Park (D5), $750,000 total - Community engagement was completed in 2024, and construction documents will be completed by the end of 2025. Construction is anticipated to begin in early 2026. - Full project allocation from GO Bond was funded: $750,000. n/a Madsen Park (D2), $750,000 total - Community engagement was completed in 2024, and construction documents will be completed by the end of 2025. Construction is anticipated to begin in early 2026. - Full project allocation from GO Bond was funded: $750,000. n/a Sunnyside Park (D6), $750,000 total - Using $75,000 (or 10% of planned GO bond funding for this park) feedback was collected from neighbors and other stakeholders on park preferences and design alternatives 2024 and 2025. Currently, Public Lands is developing construction Construction will be completed by the middle of 2027. Request: $675,000 Page | 14 documents so that construction can begin in late 2026 or early 2027, pending inclusion of the remaining $675,000 in the second tranche (April 2026). - An additional $4.2 million to be provided by the University of Utah in exchange for use of one section of the park. Full funding will need to be in place before the third tranche is available, so that bidding and contracting can occur early enough to meet that deadline. Jefferson Park (D5), $750,000 total - The playground was replaced in 2025. Community engagement also began, in conjunction with planning efforts at the MeadUP site to the north. Design will occur in 2025 and 2026, with construction to follow in 2026 or 2027. - These non-construction activities are using $75,000 (or 10%) of planned GO bond funding for this park, plus CIP funds). Construction possible in 2026 or 2027. Request: $675,000 Peace Labyrinth (D2), $750,000 total - This project (with $75,000, or 10% of the planned GO bond budget for this park) has been postponed for 1-2 years, until: o several other smaller bond projects have progressed to construction, and o Public Utilities is ready to possibly reimagine their infrastructure at the site. o Public Lands will wait until the third tranche to request the last $675,000 in bond funding for this project. n/a Parks GO Bond 1st Tranche Update & 2nd Tranche Funding Request Nov 25, 2025 Three 2nd Tranche Scenarios Scenario #1 $26,220,400 $14-15/yr Scenario #2 $37,986,400 $21-22/yr Scenario #3 $49,336,400 $27-28/yr •Construction: •Glendale Phase 2 •Fairmont Park •Sunnyside Park •Jordan River Corridor High-Profile Projects •Cottonwood Park •Jefferson Park •Warm Springs & North Gateway Parks •Public Art •Contingency ($4M) •Fleet Block OS Docs, Remediation, & Construction •FTEs •Construction: •Glendale Phase 2 •Fairmont Park •Sunnyside Park •Jordan River Corridor High-Profile Projects •Cottonwood Park •Jefferson Park •Warm Springs & North Gateway Parks •Public Art •Contingency ($3M) •Fleet Block OS Docs, Remediation, & Construction •FTEs •Construction: •Glendale Phase 2 •Fairmont Park •Sunnyside Park •Jordan River Corridor High-Profile Projects •Cottonwood Park •Jefferson Park •Warm Springs & North Gateway Parks •Public Art •Contingency ($2M) •Fleet Block OS Docs, Remediation, & Construction •FTEs If 2nd Tranche Not Funded… If 2nd Tranche Not Funded… Diminished public confidence, fewer amenities Salt Lakers voted for, & more expensive projects once the tranche is issued If 2nd Tranche Not Funded… Diminished public confidence, fewer amenities Salt Lakers voted for, & more expensive projects once the tranche is issued Slower 1st tranche spending & missed deadlines with current consultants and contractors If 2nd Tranche Not Funded… Diminished public confidence, fewer amenities Salt Lakers voted for, & more expensive projects once the tranche is issued Slower 1st tranche spending & missed deadlines with current consultants and contractors Cannot reimburse General Fund for the salaries, benefits, & operational costs of three bond-funded FTEs past FY26 If 2nd Tranche Not Funded… Diminished public confidence, fewer amenities Salt Lakers voted for, & more expensive projects once the tranche is issued Slower 1st tranche spending & missed deadlines with current consultants and contractors Cannot reimburse General Fund for the salaries, benefits, & operational costs of three bond-funded FTEs past FY26 Delaying construction on half of all bond projects… If 2nd Tranche Not Funded… Glendale Park Phase 2, D2 construction (skate park, river improvements and boat launch, sledding hill, skating ribbon, lawn space, stage, ranger station, operations building) Fairmont Park, D7 construction (improvements near Sugarmont Drive frontage, tennis courts, and Boys & Girls Club; permanent restroom, safety/security, events, and circulation improvements (other than potentially basketball) Fleet Block Public Open Space, D5 remediation, art, construction documents, or construction of 3-acre square in a neighborhood desperate for green space Sunnyside Park, D6 full buildout, risking losing $4.2M Univ of Utah donation If 2nd Tranche Not Funded… Cottonwood Park, D1 full buildout or bridge repair Bend in the River / Modesto, D2 full buildout or safety improvements in Glendale Jordan River Corridor, D1 and D2 ecological restoration or safety improvements at several locations Jefferson Park, D5 critical stormwater facility, safety, or green space improvements in Ballpark Warm Springs and North Gateway Parks, D3 improvements or art, decreasing advantages of coordinating with UDOT/UTA projects and ability to deliver on relationship with tribes Refund of the General Fund for FTEs’ salaries, benefits, ops, or reclassifications of and incentives for qualified, time-limited staff Background In November 2022, 71% of Salt Lake City voters approved the taxable $85 million Parks, Trails, and Open Space General Obligation Bond, with a maximum property tax impact of $54.80/yr ($4.57/mo) for median-valued home Background In November 2022, 71% of Salt Lake City voters approved the taxable $85 million Parks, Trails, and Open Space General Obligation Bond, with a maximum property tax impact of $54.80/yr ($4.57/mo) for median-valued home 75% of all bond projects are entirely or mostly asset replacement, such as: •Liberty Rotary Play Park, D5 (upgrading playground, replacing splash pad equipment, salvaging equipment in good condition) •Donner Trail Park, D6 (upgrading irrigation system, replacing playgrounds) •Steenblik Park, D1 (irrigation upgrades, replacing aged playground, new shade structure) Background 1st Tranche With few exceptions, generally, no residential property tax impact from the 1st Tranche 1st Tranche ($24.66M) With few exceptions, generally, no residential property tax impact from the 1st Tranche $8.8M (36%) spent or encumbered after two years (40%) of five-year spending window have elapsed 1st Tranche ($24.66M) With few exceptions, generally, no residential property tax impact from the 1st Tranche $8.8M (36%) spent or encumbered after two years (40%) of five-year spending window have elapsed 3 ribbon cuttings in 2025 (construction funded by 1st Tranche): •Glendale Park Pickleball Courts, D2 (Aug 2nd) •Backman Community Open Space, D1 (Nov 20th) •Glendale Park Remainder of Phase 1, D2 (Dec 6th) 1st Tranche ($24.66M) 8 projects spending 1st Tranche construction funding in 2026 (or already in progress in 2025): •Donner Trail Park, D6 (irrigation, playgrounds, walkways, art) •Folsom Trail Landscaping & Irrigation, D2 (greening, shade, amenities) •Ida Cotten Park, D5 (playground, seating, trees) •Liberty Rotary Play Park, D5 (playground, splash pad expansion, inclusive play and “rooms” for all abilities, wheels course, trees)** •Madsen Park, D2 (playground, b-ball, dog park, seating, trees, irrigation) •Richmond Park, D4 (history, dog run, garden, playground+shade, lighting) •Steenblik Park, D1 (plantings, seating, playground, shade, plaza) •Taufer Park, D4 (plaza, performance area, park strips, lighting, safety) 1st Tranche ($24.66M) **Liberty only one of the eight encumbering and spending construction funds in 2025; others (+$5.5M from 1st Tranche) will encumber and begin spending in 2026 2nd Tranche No new projects initiated with 2nd Tranche funding 2nd Tranche No new projects initiated with 2nd Tranche funding In every scenario, 95-97% of funding is for construction of projects planned and designed with 1st Tranche funding; other 3-5% is for FTEs, construction docs, remediation, permitting 2nd Tranche No new projects initiated with 2nd Tranche funding In every scenario, 95-97% of funding is for construction of projects planned and designed with 1st Tranche funding; other 3-5% is for FTEs, construction docs, remediation, permitting Scenario #3’s median property tax impact is roughly half of the $54.80/yr from the 2022 ballot language 2nd Tranche Three 2nd Tranche Scenarios Scenario #1 $26,220,400 $14-15/yr Scenario #2 $37,986,400 $21-22/yr Scenario #3 $49,336,400 $27-28/yr •Construction: •Glendale Phase 2 •Fairmont Park •Sunnyside Park •Jordan River Corridor High-Profile Projects •Cottonwood Park •Jefferson Park •Warm Springs & North Gateway Parks •Public Art •Contingency ($4M) •Fleet Block OS Docs, Remediation, & Construction •FTEs •Construction: •Glendale Phase 2 •Fairmont Park •Sunnyside Park •Jordan River Corridor High-Profile Projects •Cottonwood Park •Jefferson Park •Warm Springs & North Gateway Parks •Public Art •Contingency ($3M) •Fleet Block OS Docs, Remediation, & Construction •FTEs •Construction: •Glendale Phase 2 •Fairmont Park •Sunnyside Park •Jordan River Corridor High-Profile Projects •Cottonwood Park •Jefferson Park •Warm Springs & North Gateway Parks •Public Art •Contingency ($2M) •Fleet Block OS Docs, Remediation, & Construction •FTEs Next Steps Request for Council •Binding vote on one scenario, or alternative, for the issuance of 2nd Tranche by early December Timeline •November-December 2025: Council chooses scenario, or alternative, followed by Finance’s final tranche total transmittal •January 2026: Consider a budget amendment allowing proceeds to be spent after closing •Early February 2026: Bond transaction briefings, adopt bond parameters resolution •Early April 2026: Bond sale and pricing •Late April, Early May 2026: Bond closing, proceeds can be spent immediately after •Spring 2031: 2nd Tranche’s approximate spending window ends SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 10/27/2025 Date Sent to Council: 10/27/2025 From: Department * Public Lands Employee Name: Romero, Maria E-mail maria.romero@slc.gov Department Director Signature Director Signed Date 10/27/2025 Chief Administrator Officer's Signature Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date 10/27/2025 Subject: General Obligation (GO) Bond for Parks, Trails, & Open Space – Follow-Up to April and May’s 1st Tranche Update and 2nd Tranche FundingRequest Additional Staff Contact: Tom Millar Tom.Millar@slc.govTyler Murdock Tyler.Murdock@slc.govKim Shelley Kim.Shelley@slc.gov Presenters/Staff Table Tom Millar Kim Shelley Tyler Murdock Document Type Information Item Budget Impact? Yes No Budget Impact: (1) $26,220,400 (31%), (2) $37,986,400 (45%), OR (3)$49,336,400 (58%) OF THE TOTAL $85,000,000 BOND. Recommendation: Choose one of three second tranche funding scenarios (p. 4-7). Scenario #3 ($49,336,400) prevents nearly all of the impacts caused by delaying the issuance of the second and possibly the third tranche but is the costliest. 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 ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS MAYOR KIM SHELLEY DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION WWW.SLC.GOV/PARKS 1965 WEST 500 SOUTH TEL: 801-972-7800 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84104 PAGE 1 OF 10 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ____________________________ Date Received: _______________ Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date Sent to Council: __________ TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 27, 2025 Chris Wharton, Chair FROM: Kim Shelley, Director Department of Public Lands (PL) SUBJECT: General Obligation (GO) Bond for Parks, Trails, & Open Space – Follow-Up to April and May’s 1st Tranche Update and 2nd Tranche Funding Request STAFF CONTACTS: Tom Millar, PL Planning & Design Division Director, tom.millar@slc.gov Tyler Murdock, PL Deputy Director, tyler.murdock@slc.gov Kat Andra, PL Senior Planning Strategist, katherine.andra@slc.gov Jorge Chamorro, Public Services Department Director, jorge.chamorro@slc.gov Mark Stephens, City Engineer, mark.stephens@slc.gov Sean Fyfe, City Architect, sean.fyfe@slc.gov Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, marybeth.thompson@slc.gov Marina Scott, City Treasurer, marina.scott@slc.gov Greg Cleary, City Budget Director, greg.cleary@slc.gov DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget and Information Item RECOMMENDATION: Choose one of three second tranche funding scenarios (p. 4-7). Scenario #3 ($49,336,400) prevents nearly all of the impacts caused by delaying the issuance of the second and possibly the third tranche but is the costliest. BUDGET IMPACT: (1)$26,220,400 (31%), (2) $37,986,400 (45%), OR (3) $49,336,400 (58%) OF THE TOTAL $85,000,000 BOND. “GENERAL OBLIGATION (GO) BOND FOR PARKS, TRAILS, & OPEN SPACE – FOLLOW-UP TO APRIL AND MAY’S 1ST TRANCHE UPDATE 2ND TRANCHE FUNDING REQUEST” Public Lands’ October 2025 Transmittal to City Council OCT 24, 2025 PAGE 2 OF 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY First Tranche: $8,200,029 (33%) of the first tranche’s $24,660,000 has been spent or encumbered while two of the tranche’s five-year expenditure window has elapsed (40%). Six months ago, only ~$2,000,000 (8%) had been spent or encumbered. Public Lands will spend and encumber more than 70% of the first tranche’s funding by July 2026, when 55% of the window will have elapsed. There has been no residential property tax impact from the first tranche. The pace of first tranche spending slowed in September 2024 as the City prioritized timely use of Parks Impact Fees at Glendale Park and may have slowed again in mid-2025 when the issuance of the second tranche was delayed. Delays and Impacts: Overall, delaying the second tranche from October 2025 until April or May 2026 will impact at least some project timelines and public expectations. The degree to which these impacts are minimized depends on which of the three funding scenarios is selected. Second Tranche Funding Scenarios: Each of the three scenarios (p. 4-7) have different benefits, costs, and impacts. The costliest, Scenario #3, prevents nearly all of the impacts from delaying the issuance of the second and possibly the third tranches. It is estimated that #3’s residential property tax impact would be roughly $25-$26 per year for a median-valued home ($576,000), or less than half of the maximum potential impact ($54.80) included on the ballot and in the Voter Information Pamphlet in 2022. All scenarios include at least project contingency, personnel costs, and $23,350,000 for construction of Glendale Park’s Phase 2. The latter must be available by June 2026, at the latest, to avoid delaying construction of this hallmark Parks GO Bond project. New Projects & Maintenance: 75% of GO Bond-funded and more than 50% of all Public Lands capital projects are entirely or mostly asset replacement projects that replace existing park assets. Completing these projects helps maintenance crews focus time and resources on daily needs instead of performing costly maintenance of assets beyond their useful lives. BACKGROUND & INTRODUCTION This is a follow-up to the Administration’s April 21, 2025, transmittal, and May 13, 2025, briefing for the issuance of the second tranche of the taxable Parks, Trails, and Open Space General Obligation Bond (November 2022 election) (“Parks GO Bond” or “bond”). In June, the City Council decided not to approve the issuance. This transmittal answers questions and elaborates on issues and discussions from meetings with City Council staff and Finance Department leadership over the past four months: • Current and projected first tranche spending and encumbrances (p. 3); • Impacts of delaying the second and possibly the third tranches (p. 4); • Three second tranche funding scenarios, including the residential property tax burdens and impacts and drawbacks to project timelines (p. 4-7); and • How Public Lands balances new capital projects, asset replacement, and regular maintenance, and our strategy going forward (p. 8-10). “GENERAL OBLIGATION (GO) BOND FOR PARKS, TRAILS, & OPEN SPACE – FOLLOW-UP TO APRIL AND MAY’S 1ST TRANCHE UPDATE 2ND TRANCHE FUNDING REQUEST” Public Lands’ October 2025 Transmittal to City Council OCT 24, 2025 PAGE 3 OF 10 To prevent further delays, Public Lands and Finance Departments propose this schedule: • November 2025: Transmittal received by City Council Office, briefing scheduled • December 2025: City Council chooses one of three scenarios, or an amended alternative, followed by the Finance Department’s final tranche total transmittal • January 2026: approve a budget amendment to allow bond proceeds to be spent immediately following the bond sale in April or May 2026 • Early February 2026: bond transaction briefings, adopt bond parameters resolution • Early April 2026: bond sale and pricing • Late April or Early May 2026: bond closing, procced can be spent immediately Beginning this fall, Public Lands will improve public and Council awareness of GO Bond project statuses by: • Creating a Parks GO Bond newsletter with project information for each district; • Adding signage at all “Reimagine Neighborhood Park” projects with information about scopes, designs, and construction timelines; and • Re-establishing monthly, recurring meetings previously held with City Council staff and leadership to discuss project progress and the Council’s and Administrations needs surrounding these projects. SPENDING FIRST TRANCHE FUNDING $8,200,029 (33%) of the first tranche’s $24,660,000 has been spent or encumbered. Two years (40%) of the tranche’s five-year expenditure window have elapsed. Public Lands will spend and encumber more than 70% of the first tranche’s funding by July 2026, when 55% of the window will have elapsed. There was and still is no residential property tax burden from the first tranche. Table 1: First Tranche Expenditure / Encumbrance Schedule Date Time Since Issuance Spent Encumbered Remaining Oct 2023 0.0 yrs 0% $0 0% $0 0% $24,660,000 100% Apr 21, 2025 1.5 30% $800,000 (est.) 3% $1,200,000 (est.) 5% $22,660,000 (est.) 92% Oct 21, 2025 2.0 40% $2,585,853 10% $5,614,176 23% $16,459,971 67% The pace of first tranche spending slowed in September 2024 for roughly eight to 12 months. FY25 BA #1 reallocated and replaced $5,350,000 of the first tranche total intended for Glendale Park Phase 1 construction to prioritize timely use of Parks Impact Fees. Otherwise, Public Lands would have already spent nearly $14,000,000 of the first tranche as of this writing. The increased rate of expenditures and encumbrances since April 2025 (from 8% to 33% of the tranche’s total spent in just the last six months) can be attributed to many GO Bond-funded projects transitioning from more time-intensive but less funding-intensive design stages into less time-intensive but more funding-intensive construction stages. This pace will continue and may increase in 2026 and 2027. “GENERAL OBLIGATION (GO) BOND FOR PARKS, TRAILS, & OPEN SPACE – FOLLOW-UP TO APRIL AND MAY’S 1ST TRANCHE UPDATE 2ND TRANCHE FUNDING REQUEST” Public Lands’ October 2025 Transmittal to City Council OCT 24, 2025 PAGE 4 OF 10 IMPACTS OF AND CHANGES SINCE DELAYING ISSUANCE OF SECOND TRANCHE The Administration is aware of four general impacts of delaying the issuance of the second tranche from October 2025 to April or May 2026. • Uncertainty about second tranche funding availability in 2025 slowed some projects’ design and/or construction phases and first tranche spending. • Issuing the second tranche during FY26 but outside of the FY26 budget cycle (when property tax rates were set) will make its debt service costs, beginning in December 2026 (FY27), more expensive. • Any further delays beyond April or May 2026 may jeopardize the City’s ability to use bond proceeds to refund the General Fund for salaries, benefits, and operational costs (and retention incentives, raises, and/or reclassifications, where appropriate) for the three full-time employees (two in Public Lands, one in Public Services) dedicated to the GO Bond and funded only by the first tranche until the end of FY26. • Perhaps the most significant impact of delaying the second tranche until April or May 2026 is the potentially unavoidable delay in issuing the third tranche. We had planned for the third tranche to be issued in fall 2026 and include the funding for the 2027 and 2028 construction of Fairmont Park and Fleet Block Public Open Space improvements. To avoid impacts to those and other projects, the City must either choose Scenario #3 or choose Scenarios #1 or #2 and issue a third tranche by October 2026. If Salt Lake City chooses to issue Scenario #1’s or #2’s second tranche and then the remainder of the bond in a third tranche, both in 2026, it would also result in (1) concentrating rather than spreading out potential property tax increases and (2) increasing scrutiny of previous issuances and rates of expenditures by lenders during the third tranche’s due diligence. In the April 21, 2025, transmittal, the Arts Council requested $75,000 for part-time staffing to support Parks GO Bond projects. Considering the timing of the second tranche of the bond and percent-for-art approvals, and the opportunities to restructure projects to better align with available capacity and avoid delays to non-bond-funded public art commissions, the Arts Council has chosen to withdraw this request. Those same funds will be reallocated back to their original source, the Glendale Park public art commission. This decision reflects the Arts Council’s commitment to being responsible stewards of public resources, ensuring that all funds are directed where they will have the most impact at a given time. SECOND TRANCHE FUNDING SCENARIOS The following three pages include second tranche funding scenarios, including tax burdens, project/phase scopes, and drawbacks or impacts for each, assuming that funding is available by April or May 2026 and that a third tranche is not issued in 2026. Each scenario’s “Includes” section adds to the previous one; color-coding shows what is new or what is repeated from a previous scenario. “GENERAL OBLIGATION (GO) BOND FOR PARKS, TRAILS, & OPEN SPACE – FOLLOW-UP TO APRIL AND MAY’S 1ST TRANCHE UPDATE 2ND TRANCHE FUNDING REQUEST” Public Lands’ October 2025 Transmittal to City Council OCT 24, 2025 PAGE 5 OF 10 Scenario #1 $26,220,400 Tax Burden: ~$13-$14 / year, for a median valued ($576,000) primary residence Includes: • Glendale Park Phase 2 Construction ($23,350,000) • Full-time employees’ salaries, benefits, and operational costs ($870,400), including a reclassification of one Associate Landscape Architect II position in Public Lands to a Senior Landscape Architect position (additional details can be found in the original April 21, 2025, second tranche transmittal) • Contingency ($2,000,000) Drawbacks and Impacts: • Only funds Glendale Park’s Phase 2 construction • 12-18 month construction delays and fewer amenities due to increased costs for the following project phases, unless a third tranche is issued by October 2026: o Allen Park Construction (D7) o Fairmont Park (D7) o Fleet Block Public Open Space Construction(D5) o Warm Springs & North Gateway Parks Construction (D3) o Public Art Commissions at the two above projects ($441,000) o Cottonwood Park Construction, Repair of Dog Park Bridge (D1) o Jefferson Park Construction (D5) o Jordan River Corridor Projects’ Construction (D1, D2) o Sunnyside Park Construction (D6) • Potential forfeiture of $4,200,000 from the University of Utah for the Sunnyside Park project (D6) if the City fails to meet the stipulation within the donation agreement to complete the project by July 2027 “GENERAL OBLIGATION (GO) BOND FOR PARKS, TRAILS, & OPEN SPACE – FOLLOW-UP TO APRIL AND MAY’S 1ST TRANCHE UPDATE 2ND TRANCHE FUNDING REQUEST” Public Lands’ October 2025 Transmittal to City Council OCT 24, 2025 PAGE 6 OF 10 Scenario #2 $37,986,400 Tax Burden: ~$19-$20 / year, for a median valued ($576,000) primary residence Includes: • Glendale Park Phase 2 Construction ($23,350,000) • Full-time employees’ salaries, benefits, and operational costs ($870,400), including a reclassification of one Associate Landscape Architect II position in Public Lands to a Senior Landscape Architect position (additional details can be found in the original April 21, 2025, second tranche transmittal) • Contingency ($2,000,000 + $1,000,000) • Allen Park Phase 1 Construction ($3,650,000) • Fleet Block Public Open Space Construction Docs, Remediation, Permitting, Prep Infrastructure ($900,000) • Warm Springs & North Gateway Parks Construction ($1,350,000) • Public Art Commissions at the two above projects ($441,000) • Cottonwood Park Construction ($675,000) • Sunnyside Park Construction ($675,000) • Jefferson Park Construction ($675,000) • Jordan River Corridor’s First High-Profile Projects’ Construction Docs and Construction ($2,400,000) Drawbacks and Impacts: • 12-18 month construction delays and fewer amenities due to increased costs for project phases, unless a third tranche is issued by October 2026: o Fairmont Park (D7) o Fleet Block Public Open Space and Art Commission (D5) o Peace Labyrinth (D2) o Remaining Jordan River projects (D1, D2) “GENERAL OBLIGATION (GO) BOND FOR PARKS, TRAILS, & OPEN SPACE – FOLLOW-UP TO APRIL AND MAY’S 1ST TRANCHE UPDATE 2ND TRANCHE FUNDING REQUEST” Public Lands’ October 2025 Transmittal to City Council OCT 24, 2025 PAGE 7 OF 10 Scenario #3 $49,336,400 Tax Burden: ~$25-$26 / year, for a median valued ($576,000) primary residence (or less than half of the maximum potential impact ($54.80) included on the ballot and in the Voter Information Pamphlet in 2022) Includes: • Glendale Park Phase 2 Construction ($23,350,000) • Full-time employees’ salaries, benefits, and operational costs ($870,400), including a reclassification of one Associate Landscape Architect II position in Public Lands to a Senior Landscape Architect position (additional details can be found in the original April 21, 2025, second tranche transmittal) • Contingency ($2,000,000 + $1,000,000 + $1,000,000) • Allen Park Phase 1 Construction ($3,650,000) • Fleet Block Public Open Space Construction Docs, Remediation, Permitting, Prep Infrastructure ($900,000) + Construction ($4,500,000) • Warm Springs & North Gateway Parks Construction ($1,350,000) • Public Art Commissions at the two above projects ($441,000) • Cottonwood Park Construction ($675,000) • Sunnyside Park Construction ($675,000) • Jefferson Park Construction ($675,000) • Jordan River Corridor’s First High-Profile Projects’ Construction Docs and Construction ($2,400,000) • Fairmont Park Construction ($5,850,000) Drawbacks and Impacts: • Most expensive of the three scenarios • $11,003,600 left for a third and final tranche, with construction timelines pushed likely into 2028 or 2029 and fewer amenities due to increased costs, if issued in 2027: o Peace Labyrinth Construction ($675,000) (D2) o Jordan River Corridor’s Remaining Projects’ Construction ($5,500,000) (D1, D2) o All Remaining Contingency ($2,547,600) o All Remaining Personnel Costs (Salaries, Benefits, Operational) ($2,281,000) “GENERAL OBLIGATION (GO) BOND FOR PARKS, TRAILS, & OPEN SPACE – FOLLOW-UP TO APRIL AND MAY’S 1ST TRANCHE UPDATE 2ND TRANCHE FUNDING REQUEST” Public Lands’ October 2025 Transmittal to City Council OCT 24, 2025 PAGE 8 OF 10 BALANCING NEW CAPITAL PROJECTS, ASSET REPLACEMENT, & MAINTENANCE Maintaining existing properties and future projects is a core responsibility and a top priority for the Department of Public Lands. One key theme of discussions between the City Council and the Administration over the past several years, and markedly in 2025, is the growing tension between funding and delivering new capital projects, primarily through General Obligation (GO) Bond and CIP funding, and appropriately addressing both capital asset replacement and deferred maintenance needs throughout the Public Lands system. This transmittal outlines current funding allocations and departmental strategies for balancing these priorities, which are often complimentary and rarely zero sum. Our team continues to explore innovative and adaptive strategies to uphold service levels across existing properties while also supporting the maintenance needs of new properties created through bond funding and other sources. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) • Since 2018, City Council has allocated $250,000 annually to address “deferred maintenance” across the Public Lands system. These funds are used to tackle the most urgent maintenance needs and are prioritized using criteria approved by Council. These funds are primarily used for repairing the most urgent needs in our system as outlined in our asset management system, Cartegraph. • In August 2022, the City Council allocated $2,000,000 annually from the Funding our Future (FOF) half-cent sales tax to fund increased parks maintenance. The intent of this funding was two-fold: (1) immediately narrow the gap between existing maintenance needs and existing funding while GO Bond-funded projects were being developed, and then (2) fund the maintenance of GO Bond-funded projects as they came online. o Public Lands has tracked where these funds have been spent since 2022. In large part, they have been transferred to cover new properties and amenities, including preparing for the opening of several early Parks GO Bond projects. o GO Bond-funded projects’ operational budgets are developed as design phases wrap up and construction phases begin. o We have incorporated and will continue to incorporate those requests for FOF and additional O&M funding in Public Lands’ “New Properties” budget insights each fiscal year. o Once all GO Bond-funded projects are complete, it is likely that net O&M budget needs for those projects will exceed $2,000,000 annually. • In 2023, Public Lands submitted a legislative intent to the City Council regarding key operational challenges associated with asset replacement and deferred maintenance. The Department intends to update this document to help share progress and continued challenges in this area in FY26. “GENERAL OBLIGATION (GO) BOND FOR PARKS, TRAILS, & OPEN SPACE – FOLLOW-UP TO APRIL AND MAY’S 1ST TRANCHE UPDATE 2ND TRANCHE FUNDING REQUEST” Public Lands’ October 2025 Transmittal to City Council OCT 24, 2025 PAGE 9 OF 10 New Capital Projects and Asset Replacements Of the 60+ capital projects currently managed by or requiring significant involvement from the Public Lands Department’s Planning & Design Division: • 54% of all (and 75% of GO Bond-funded) projects are entirely or mostly asset replacements1 • 32% of all (and 25% of GO Bond-funded) projects are entirely or mostly new assets2 • 12% are planning and design-only projects 3 10 of the 14 Public Lands CIP projects funded in FY26 focus primarily on replacing aging or failing assets. Three of the four other projects are entirely or mostly new assets (e.g., event infrastructure, playground shade, and the Green Loop) but still help reduce pressure on heavily used parks, extend the lifespan of our existing infrastructure, and, in the case of the Green Loop, reduce the amount of roadway infrastructure the City needs to maintain. Per the City Council’s direction, the Department’s deliberate approach to seeking funding for asset replacement projects and new assets through CIP and bonds over the last several fiscal years reflects our commitment to maintaining a safe, functional, and sustainable public lands system while continuing to invest in new facilities that meet community needs. It should be noted that, unlike deferred maintenance needs focusing on short-term fixes funded through the Department’s annual operating budget, there is no dedicated funding source for capital asset replacement. While Public Lands and our partners are managing more and larger projects than ever before, we are also completing more capital projects than ever (12-15 per year vs. 4-5 per year previously). We have prepared a separate memorandum that offers solutions to real and perceived capital project delays. We welcome the opportunity for small group conversations about capital project process improvements for Public Lands’ projects. Strategic Capital, Acquisition, and Asset Management Plan (SCAAMP) The SCAAMP is the Public Lands Department’s new strategic capital plan, to be completed in 2026. It was funded by the City Council with General Fund dollars through FY23’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for $160,000. The Plan lays out each of the next 10 years’ annual capital needs for both existing asset replacement and new assets/properties. The SCAAMP helps the City understand where all of its public lands needs truly are, and budget accordingly. The Plan’s recommendations will help the City make strong fiscal decisions to (1) fulfill the next 10 years of asset management and replacement needs (based on asset condition data), and (2) maintain the City’s park, trail, and natural land level of service by adding new assets 1 Major repairs or replacements of existing assets in existing properties that allow O&M staff to focus on daily needs instead of performing costly, time-intensive maintenance of assets that are beyond their useful life. Often funded by General Fund (GF) or Funding our Future (FOF) dollars. 2 New assets are often funded by Parks Impact Fees or GF, meet demands from population growth, and spread out existing and future demand so that all of our public spaces are easier for O&M staff to care for and maintain. 3 Citywide, strategic, and site-specific planning and/or design projects that do not necessarily include construction. “GENERAL OBLIGATION (GO) BOND FOR PARKS, TRAILS, & OPEN SPACE – FOLLOW-UP TO APRIL AND MAY’S 1ST TRANCHE UPDATE 2ND TRANCHE FUNDING REQUEST” Public Lands’ October 2025 Transmittal to City Council OCT 24, 2025 PAGE 10 OF 10 and properties where they’re needed most. As our population grows, recreation needs change, and assets age, it is necessary for the Department and the City to consider both of those focuses (and their respective and often exclusive funding sources), rather than focusing on one over the other. With the completion of the Public Lands Asset Management Plan anticipated in 2026, the department will begin prioritizing asset replacements at a programmatic level. In the interim, Public Lands will continue to leverage both the Capital Improvement Program and GO Bond funding to address capital asset replacement needs alongside the development of new public amenities. This page has intentionally been left blank January 2026 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday New Year’s Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Oath of Office Ceremony 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 CRA, Work Session & Formal 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Martin Luther King Jr. Day Work Session & Formal *Legislative Session 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NOTES Our office is closed Federal & State Holidays. These closures are indicated in blue *Legislative Session begins Tuesday, January 20, 2026. *This could change due to Utah Constitutional Amendment F and subsequent bills. School dates are at the end of this doc Mayor’s State of the City Address January ?, 2026 Last updated 11/18/2025 February 2026 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Work Session & Formal 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 CRA & Work Session Valentines Day 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Presidents’ Day Work Session & Formal 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTES Our office is closed Federal & State Holidays. These closures are indicated in blue School dates at the end of this doc March 2026 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NAEH Work Session & Formal NAEH NAEH Legislative session ends 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NAHRO CRA & Work Session NAHRO NAHRO 15 16 St. Patrick’s Day 17 18 19 20 21 ULI/NLC ULI/NLC NLC 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I Work Session & Formal 29 30 31 NOTES Legislative Session ends March 5 National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH) – March 2-4, San Deigo, CA NAHRO – March 9-11 at Washington, DC ULI Housing opportunity conference – March 16-17, 2026 Baltimore, Maryland NLC March 16-18 Washington DC April 2026 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Easter Work Session & Formal 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 CRA, & Work Session ULCT ULCT ULCT 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Work Session & Formal APA 26 27 28 29 30 APA APA APA NOTES April 7 is Primary General Election day School dates at the end of this doc Utah Leagues of Cities and Towns (ULCT) Midyear Conference – April 16-18, St. George, UT American Planning Association (APA) scheduled for – April 25 – 28 Detroit, Michigan. May 2026 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 ULI 5 6 ULI 7 8 9 Work Session & Formal – Mayor’s budget presentation ULI Work Session only (tentative as needed for budget) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Mother’s Day CRA & Work Session Work Session only (tentative as needed for budget) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 CRA, Work Session & Formal Work Session only (tentative as needed for budget) 24 25 26 27 APA 28 29 30 Memorial Day Work Session only APA Work Session only (tentative as needed for budget) APA 31 NOTES Our office is closed on Federal & State Holidays. These closures are indicated in blue School dates at the end of this doc May & June meetings will begin at 1 pm ULI Spring meeting May 5 – 7 Nashville, TN APA online – May 27 - 29 June 2026 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 Work Session & Formal Work Session only (tentative as needed for budget) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 CRA, Work Session & Formal Work Session only (tentative as needed for budget) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Formal (tentative – as needed for budget) Juneteenth Observed 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Father’s Day 28 29 30 Budget adoption deadline NOTES Our office is closed on Federal & State Holidays. These closures are indicated in blue Legal deadline to adopt the annual budget is June 30 School dates at the end of this doc May & June meetings will begin at 1 pm July 2026 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 Independence Day 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Work Session & Formal 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 CRA, Work Session & Formal 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pioneer Day 26 27 28 29 30 31 NOTES Our office is closed on Federal & State Holidays. These closures are indicated in blue School dates at the end of this doc August 2026 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Work Session & Formal Night Out Against Crime events91011 12 13 14 15 CRA, Work Session & Formal (Truth in Taxation 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NOTES School dates at the end of this doc September 2026 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 Work Session & Formal 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Labor Day CRA & Work Session 13 14 Mpact 15 16 17 18 19 Mpact Work Session & Formal Mpact Urban Exploration Mpact Urban Exploration Urban Exploration Urban Exploration 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NOTES Our office is closed on Federal & State Holidays. These closures are indicated in blue Mpact September 14 – 17 in Toronto Downtown Alliance Urban Exploration September 16 -19 Detroit, Michigan October 2026 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Work Session & Formal 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 CRA & Work Session NAHRO NAHRO NAHRO 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Work Session & Formal 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ULI ULCT/ULI ULCT/ULI ULI Halloween NOTES NAHRO October 15 – 17 Denver, CO ULCT Annual Convention – October 27 -28 Salt Lake City ULI fall conference, October 26- 29, Miami, FL School dates at the end of this doc November 2026 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Daylight savings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 General election 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 CRA, Work Session & Formal Veterans Day 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Work Session & Formal 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Thanksgiving Day Day after Thanksgiving 29 30 NOTES Our office is closed on Federal & State Holidays. These closures are indicated in blue November 3 General election NLC City Summit – Nov School dates at the end of this doc December 2026 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 Work Session & Formal 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 CRA, Work Session & Formal 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Christmas Eve Christmas Day 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 New Year’s Eve New Year’s Day 3 4 5 Work Session & Formal NOTES Our office is closed on Federal & State Holidays. These closures are indicated in blue School dates at the end of this doc School Dates: SLC school district o 2025 School Year Winter Recess December 22, 2025 – January 2, 2026 o Spring Recess April 6, 2026 – April 10, 2026 o Classes end May 29, 2026 o 2026-27 School Year Classes begin Aug. 19, 2025 (haven’t been posted yet) o Fall Recess Oct. 16 -17, 2025 (haven’t been posted yet) o Winter Recess begins Dec. 22, 2025 – Jan. 2, 2026(haven’t been posted yet) U of U o 2025 School Year Winter break December 13, 2025 – January 4, 2026 o Classes begin Jan 5, 2026 o Spring break scheduled for March 7 - 15 o 2026-27 School Year Classes begin Aug. 24 o Fall break Oct. 10 - 18 o Winter break Dec. 19 - Jan. 10, 2027 Westminster o 2025 School Year Winter break Dec. 24 - Jan. 1, 2026 o Classes begin Jan. 20 o Spring break March 16 - 20 o 2025-26 School Year Classes begin Aug. 26 o Fall Break Oct. 19 - 23 o Winter break Dec. 24 – Jan 1, 2027 SLCC o 2026 School Year Classes begin Jan. 12 o Spring break March 9 - 14 o 2026 – 27 School Year Classes begin Aug. 25 o Fall break Oct.15 - 16 o Classes end Dec.10 1 2026 MEETING SCHEDULE FOR SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AGENCY (CRA), & LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY (LBA) DATE 11/18/2025 Public Notice is hereby given that the 2025 Annual Meeting Schedule of the City Council, Community Reinvestment Agency (CRA) & Local Building Authority (LBA) of Salt Lake City, Utah, shall be as follows: The Board of Directors will hold regular meetings from time to time as the Board deems necessary. When held, regular meetings will be on the same dates and at the same times and places as regular meetings of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah. Council Meetings generally include a 2 p.m. WORK SESSION and a 7 p.m. FORMAL SESSION All meetings of the City Council are open to the public unless closed pursuant to Sections 52-4-204, 52-4-205 and 78B-1-137, Utah Code Annotated. Notice of each meeting is given at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting as required by State law. An agenda of each meeting is posted at: Salt Lake City Council website www.slc.gov/council State of Utah Public Notice website www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html Meetings in addition to those listed below may be held or canceled as circumstances may require, subject to applicable public notice requirements. Notice: The City & County Building is an accessible facility with a street-level entrance located on the east side of the building. 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. In accordance with State statute, City ordinance, and Council policy, one or more Council Members may be connected via electronic means. 2 2026 MEETING SCHEDULE FOR SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AGENCY (CRA), & LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY (LBA) DATE 11/18/2025 January Meetings Tuesday, January 13 CRA meeting, Council Work Session & Formal meeting Tuesday, January 20 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting February Meetings Tuesday, February 3 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting Tuesday, February 10 CRA Meeting & Council Work Session Tuesday, February 17 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting March Meetings Tuesday, March 3 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting Tuesday, March 10 CRA Meeting & Council Work Session Tuesday, March 24 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting April Meetings Tuesday, April 7 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting Tuesday, April 14 CRA Meeting & Council Work Session Tuesday, April 21 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting May Meetings Tuesday, May 5 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting TENTATIVE - Thursday, May 7 Council Work Session Only (as needed for budget) Tuesday, May 12 CRA Meeting & Council Work Session TENTATIVE - Thursday, May 14 Council Work Session Only (as needed for budget) Tuesday, May 19 CRA Meeting, Council Work Session & Formal Meeting TENTATIVE Thursday, May 21 Council Work Session Only (as needed for budget) Tuesday, May 26 Council Work session only TENTATIVE Thursday, May 28 Council Work Session Only (as needed for budget) June Meetings Tuesday, June 2 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting TENTATIVE - Thursday, June 4 Council Work Session Only (as needed for budget) Tuesday, June 9 CRA Meeting, Council Work Session, & Formal Meeting 3 2026 MEETING SCHEDULE FOR SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL, COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AGENCY (CRA), & LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY (LBA) DATE 11/18/2025 TENTATIVE - Thursday, June 11 Council Work Session (as needed for budget) TENTATIVE - Tuesday, June 16 Formal (as needed for budget) July Meetings Tuesday, July 7 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting Tuesday, July 14 CRA Meeting, Council Work Session & Formal Meeting August Meetings Tuesday, August 4 Council Work Session, & Formal Meeting Tuesday, August 11 CRA Meeting, Council Work Session, Formal Meeting, & Truth-in-Taxation September Meetings Tuesday, September 1 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting Tuesday, September 8 CRA Meeting & Council Work Session Tuesday, September 15 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting October Meetings Tuesday, October 6 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting Tuesday, October 13 CRA Meeting & Council Work Session Tuesday, October 20 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting November Meetings Tuesday, November 10 CRA Meeting, Council Work Session, & Formal Meeting Tuesday, November 17 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting December Meetings Tuesday, December 1 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting Tuesday, December 8 CRA Meeting, Council Work Session, & Formal Meeting SALT LAKE CITY BOARD MEMBER TRANSMITTAL To: Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date: 09/03/2025 Date Sent To Council: 09/04/2025 From: Otto, Rachel Subject: Board appointment Recommendation: Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board Recommendation: The Administration recommends the Council approve the appointment of Parviz Faiz to the Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board for a 3 year term starting on the date of City Council advice and consent and ending on the first Monday in June. Parviz Faiz currently lives in District 3. Approved:* Otto, Rachel City Council Announcements For Your Information: A. Scriveners' error - Correction on Budget Amendment No. 2 Motion Sheet During the November 18, 2025, Formal Meeting, the Council adopted Motion 1 related to FY 2026 Budget Amendment #2, which included a correction of a Scrivener’s error on a VOCA grant item. Council Staff inadvertently listed the wrong grant title on the motion sheet. The sheet referenced Item G2 – VOCA Grant Victim Services Police Department, but it should have referenced Item G1 – VOCA Grant Victim Services Prosecutor’s Office. The adjustment amount included in the ***Note was correct. Finance is addressing this as a Scriveners error, and no additional Council action is required. A redlined version of the motion sheet is attached. MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Michael Sanders, Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:November 18, 2025 RE: FISCAL YEAR 2026 BUDGET AMENDMENT No.2 MOTION 1 – Adopt remaining items and close the budget amendment. I move that the Council 1. Adjust item A3 – Elected Officials Transition Costs from $45,000 to $14,440 2. Adopt item A3 and the remaining items in the budget amendment as proposed by the Administration, including the Scrivenor’s error correction on item G12 - VOCA Grant Victim Services Prosecutor’s Office Police Department; and 3. Close the budget amendment. *Note the original budgeted amount for item A-3 accounted for transition services for up to three council districts. As of the printing of this motion sheet it appears that only one council district will need transition services. **Note that on October 21st, 2025, the Council adopted items A2, A6, and A11. ***Note that on October 23rd, 2025, the Council Office was made aware of a Scrivenor’s error which has been corrected. Item G12 VOCA Grant Victim Services Prosecutor’s Office Police Department has been updated from $596,025.60 to $414,061.69. MOTION 2 – Not adopt the remaining items and close the budget amendment I move that the Council 1. Not adopt the remaining items in the budget amendment as proposed by the Administration; and 2. Close the budget amendment. MOTION 3 – Defer action to a future Council Meeting I move that the Council continue discussion on this item and defer action to a future council meeting. MOTION 4 - Potential Legislative Intent I move that the Council adopt a legislative intent as follows “It is the Council’s intent to request the Administration to develop a formal policy which clearly defines when and how private donations should be accepted for CIP projects. It is the Council's desire that said policy include evaluation criteria and approval procedures. Ongoing maintenance of the asset(s) purchased or constructed with said donation should be considered in relation to its benefit(s).” : SALT LAKE CITY CLOSED SESSION SWORN STATEMENT Pursuant to Utah Code Annotated §52-4-205 & 52-4-206. Public Body Name (Check One): Salt Lake City Council Community Reinvestment Agency Local Building Authority Meeting Date: ________________________________________________________________________________ Presiding Officer: ________________________________________________________________________________ Closed session was held at the same location as the public meetings. Closed session was held at different Location ____________________________________________________ A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following matters under Utah Code Annotated §52-4-205: The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the meeting was closed. Recording Required Pursuant to UCA §52-4-206: §52 -4-205(1)(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining §52-4-205(1(c) discussion of pending or reasonably imminent litigation (unless discussion is covered by attorney-client §78B-1-137) §52-4-205(l)(d) strategy sessions to discuss purchase, exchange, lease, or sale of real property (negotiation prior to public notice) §52-4-205(l)(e) strategy sessions to discuss sale of real property, including water rights. (terms are public, finalizing offers / sale) NO Record Required Pursuant to UCA §52-4-206 §52-4-205(1)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual §52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems §52-4-205(1)(g) investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct §78B-1-137 Attorney-Client matters pursuant to UCA §____________ Other lawful purposes (specify statutory reference) The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include: (a) the date, time, and place of the meeting; (b) the names of members Present and Absent; and (c) the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting. A recording and minutes were not made pursuant to UCA §52-4-206 (a)(f)(g) or §78B-1-137 A electronic recording and minutes were made pursuant to UCA §52-4-206 (b)(c)(d)(e) I hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Presiding Member Date of Signature November 25, 2025 Chris Wharton Chris Wharton (Dec 8, 2025 13:13:38 MST) Dec 8, 2025 Sworn Statement November 25, 2025 Final Audit Report 2025-12-08 Created:2025-12-08 By:STEPHANIE ELLIOTT (STEPHANIE.ELLIOTT@slc.gov) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAr8fL7aAmBzSF13Jua7RsRgqyAt5ByV6P "Sworn Statement November 25, 2025" History Document created by STEPHANIE ELLIOTT (STEPHANIE.ELLIOTT@slc.gov) 2025-12-08 - 4:50:33 PM GMT Document emailed to Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov) for signature 2025-12-08 - 4:51:19 PM GMT Email viewed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov) 2025-12-08 - 6:26:59 PM GMT Document e-signed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov) Signature Date: 2025-12-08 - 8:13:38 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2025-12-08 - 8:13:38 PM GMT