Council Provided Information - 1/16/2024COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY24
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards,
Jennifer Bruno, and Kira Luke
DATE: January 16, 2024
RE: Budget Amendment #3
of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024
NEW INFORMATION
At the January 16 briefing, the Council received a General Fund revenues update from the Finance Department. As
of November, sales tax revenues are $3 million below budget projections. Sales tax receipts have a two-month delay
between the purchase and the revenue coming in. The Council reviewed all remaining items proposed by the
Administration. At the January 16 formal meeting, the Council adopted most remaining items except for two items
(A-10 and A-12) that had follow up questions. Additional information responding to Council Member questions on
these two items is shown below. There is also a follow up item to release funds from an existing holding account to
support the temporary sanctioned campground which is shown as item I-2 below. The Council may vote on some or
all these three items at the February 6 formal meeting.
A-10: Downtown Parking Pay Station Replacements ($135,993 from General Fund Balance)
Administration Responses to Council Follow Up Questions
Below are the Council’s follow up questions from earlier briefings and the Administration’s responses:
Question: How will the public, downtown businesses, and other organizations learn about the new parking pay
stations?
Response: The vendor will assist the City in producing an information campaign that will inform users of
changes. This will occur both online and in person.
Question: Will the existing ParkSLC mobile app continue or would a new app be needed?
Response: At this time ParkSLC will continue to be used. Both the app vendor and the pay station vendor
have assured us that an integration is possible between the two systems, just like the one that exists now. It is
possible in the future the City may explore other app options, but there are no immediate plans to so.
Question: Would the new stations allow the City to improve parking demand management practices? Would
additional funding be needed for some technology features not currently expected to be included in the new kiosks
but would be beneficial for the City? (For example, variable pricing during peak hours, paying for shorter or longer
time periods, real-time information on where parking spaces are available (public and private), reservation-based
parking spaces, vending zones like food trucks, and supporting the potential pedestrianization of closing Main Street
during certain times).
Response: The selection committee strongly desired to future proof the pay stations and thus special attention
was given to all aspects of this question. The potential new stations have the capability to have a variable rate
structure, paying for shorter or longer time periods, and the vending zone mentioned. They can also support
providing regional information (items of interest nearby), advertising (events, local businesses, etc.) payment
of parking citations, and sale and reloading of public transportation cards. It is expected that current practices
Project Timeline:
Set Date: November 14, 2023
1st Briefing: December 5, 2023
2nd Briefing, Public Hearing, and Adopted Urgent
Items: December 12, 2023
3rd Briefing: January 9, 2024
4th Briefing and Adopted Some Items: January 16, 2024
5th Briefing: February 6, 2024 and Potential Vote
Potential Action: February 6, 2024
for reserving a parking spot will continue. (User will need to request a reservation from Transportation, and
the meter spot will then be bagged.)
There is no additional funding anticipated for any of these services as the contract with the vendor provides
support services that would be utilized as decisions are made to implement the parking management
practices.
There is the option to purchase an occupation module with a web portal as well as pollution sensors that could
be installed on each pay station. The stations could also be upfitted to manage electrical car charging at
additional costs.
Question: Is information available about what percentage of users interact with kiosks vs the parking app? Other
metrics about also be useful context for the Council to consider this funding request. Council Member Puy
mentioned during the briefing that some cities have no physical kiosks so all customers use the app. Has that option
been explored and are there pros and cons that could be shared?
Response: In 2022 Transportation commissioned a parking study performed by an outside party. This study
found that 41%-60% is the pay-by-app share of transactions for most pay stations. Due to this variance, the
plan is to only remove about 10 pay stations or so. However, Transportation is hoping to slightly expand the
footprint of paid parking spots, thus the net change will be negligible. While app usage is increasing, there are
still enough cash/card transactions carried out at the pay stations to retain them. Pay stations also ensure
equity of access to parking for those who prefer to use cash, or don’t want to use the app. The study also found
that the average number of transactions in 2022 per pay station was 3,015.
Parking Meter Study and Two New Attachments
The Public Services Department and Transportation Division shared two new attachments that informed this budget
request: Attachment 3 is a Salt Lake City Metered Parking Analysis Executive Summary Presentation, and
Attachment 4 is the final report from November 2022. The study raises several policy topics for possible future
consideration such as:
- Expanding parking meters in new areas,
o In the short-term possible west downtown, Station Center, Granary District, Central Ninth, parts of
Central City,
o In the medium-term the Sugar House business district),
- Updating the fee schedule and fines including potentially new zones with different fees and rate structures
- Changing time limits, reducing free parking times, and increasing days of the week and time of the day for
enforcement, and
- New policies for special events and special overlay areas.
The Council may wish to consider scheduling a separate briefing on the parking meters study findings.
A-12: A-12: Police Officer Overtime Related to the Sanctioned Campground Pilot Program
($500,000 from ARPA Funds Unused in Prior Fiscal Years)
In response to Council questions about where police officers are located during overtime shifts related to the
temporary sanctioned campground, the Police Department clarified that officers “are in the surrounding area of the
sanctioned campground including the area of the downtown security initiative. Officers are not staffed inside the
sanctioned campground but will respond to calls for service inside the sanctioned campground as needed.”
The Council also asked for information about the Department’s overtime budget, vacancy savings, and personnel
services budget. The Department responded that actual expenses for overtime are nearly $2.8 million so far in
FY2024 which exceeds the $1.8 million overtime budget. Note there is a related $1.8 million request in Budget
Amendment #4 for police officer overtime. The Department stated that the personnel services budget numbers will
be available later because of pending financial system report validations.
I-2: General Operations Support for the Temporary Sanctioned Campground ($500,000 from
Nondepartmental Holding Account)
This is a follow up item to release $500,000 to the State for general operations at the temporary sanctioned
campground (not reimbursement for specific incurred expenses). The total estimated cost to operate the
campground is $860,000 from December through April. Note that the $860,000 operating cost doesn’t include the
City’s expenses to prepare the site to host the campground such as utility upgrades and the State’s cost to purchase
the Foldum micro shelter units. The campground is anticipated to operate until April 30, 2024. The State is
evaluating ongoing funding options and preparing a permanent location for the campground several blocks away
from the temporary site.
FY2024 Conditional Appropriation Ordinance Text
The Council previously put $1.5 million from the General Fund into a holding account for potential expenses related
to the temporary sanctioned campground. All those funds remain in the holding account. The Council included the
below conditional appropriation language in the FY2024 annual budget adoption ordinance. The Council could vote
on this condition being satisfied and releasing $500,000 from the holding account at the February 6 formal meeting.
“Conditional Appropriation -- Sanctioned Camping Catalytic Grant Fund – $500,000 for sanctioned
camping/RV parking into a holding account, pending future discussion with Administration, fact-finding on
best practices from other cities, and local and State considerations.”
Policy questions:
➢Additional Funding Needs – The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether additional funding
requests related to the temporary sanctioned campground are anticipated.
➢Coordinating Closure of Temporary Site and Opening of Permanent Campground – The Council may wish to
ask the Administration what preparations are underway to coordinate tenants moving from the temporary
site to the State’s permanent campground.
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
At the January 9 briefing, the Council discussed the modified proposal for item A-1 from the Fire Department which
requests four civilian single-role paramedics. The Council took a unanimous straw poll in support of the proposal.
Item A-1 has a related resolution that would request admission to the Tier 2 Firefighters Retirement System for
emergency medical personnel including paramedics and social workers. The retirement system resolution and the
budget adoption ordinance will be listed separately on the formal meeting agenda for individual votes.
The Finance Department has provided a General Fund revenues update presentation that will be given at the
January 16 briefing. Council Members had requested the update as context to consider the remaining items in
Budget Amendment #3. On January 16, the Council will continue reviewing items that were not yet discussed at
earlier briefings. The Council may consider voting on item A-1, the related resolution, and remaining budget items in
this amendment at the January 16 formal meeting.
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
At the December 12 briefing, the Council reviewed four items previously discussed with time sensitive deadlines
(e.g., the upcoming Utah Legislature’s General Session, anticipated price increases, winter shelter needs, and
manufacturer order windows). At the formal meeting later that day, the Council closed the public hearing and
adopted the four urgent items listed below. The budget amendment remains open. Some Council Members
expressed a preference to receive a General Fund Balance update as confirmed by the annual financial audit and
revenue projections as context for considering remaining items in this budget amendment. The Finance Department
is expected to be available to present these updates at the January 16 briefing. The Fire Department submitted a
modified proposal for item A-1 which is summarized below. At the time of publishing, details were pending on
remaining funds from prior year appropriations related to item I-1 for physical security improvements to City Hall.
Urgent Items Adopted on December 12
- A-4: City Attorney’s Office Legislative Division Request for Four New FTEs ($317,190 from General Fund
Balance of which $20,000 is one-time for workspaces, and $12,000 to the IMS Fund one-time)
- A-15: Mill & Overlay Pilot Program for Street Pavement Maintenance ($205,177 from the Quarter Cent Sales
Tax for Transportation Fund Balance, and Transferring $955,177 to the Fleet Fund)
- A-16: The Road Home’s Family Hotel Winter Interim Plan ($300,000 from General Fund Balance)
- D-2: IMS FY2023 Encumbrance Reappropriation ($4,269,083 from IMS Fund Balance)
Modified Proposal for A-1: Fire Department Medical Response Civilian Single Role Paramedics
Request for Two New FTEs and Reclassify Two Vacant Entry-level Firefighter FTEs
(Budget Neutral in FY2024 Using Vacancy Savings; $133,266 New Ongoing General Fund Cost in FY2025)
After the Council’s initial discussion on December 5, the Fire Department submitted a modified proposal for this
item. The table below compares the original and modified proposals. The Department considers staffing civilian
single role paramedics in the existing Medical Response Teams to be a pilot program. Currently, firefighter EMTs
staff the Medical Response Teams. If the pilot program creates operational efficiencies as expected, then additional
civilian single role paramedics may be requested in the next annual budget.
Proposal FTEs (full-time employees)FY2024 Budget Impact FY2025 Budget Impact
Original 4 new FTEs $160,519 from General
Fund Balance $292,638
Modified
Reclassify 2 vacant entry-level
firefighter FTEs, and
2 new FTEs
Budget neutral; using
vacancy savings $133,266
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
At the first briefing, the Council discussed time sensitive items and the three items requesting new full-time
employees (FTEs). The other items will be discussed at the follow-up briefing on December 12. The Council may
consider adopting some or all items in Budget Amendment #3 after the public hearing is held, although standard
practice would be to consider only the time sensitive items. In addition to the amendment adoption ordinance, the
Council could also act on another ordinance that is proposed for item A-4 to codify a Legislative Affairs Division in
the City Attorney’s Office and the duties and functions of that department. Item A-1 also has a resolution proposed
requesting admission to the Tier 2 Firefighters Retirement System for emergency medical personnel including
social workers.
Straw Polls
The Council took the following nonbinding straw polls at the first briefing:
- A-4: City Attorney’s Office Legislative Division Request for Four New FTEs ($317,220 from General Fund
Balance):
o Six in favor, none against, and one absent to support a division director FTE appointed ($85,510)
and a senior city attorney merit ($117,676).
o Three in favor, three against, and one absent to support a special projects analyst ($61,707) and
administrative assistant ($52,297).
o Note the amounts above in parenthesis are half-year costs for salary, benefits, $3,000 per
employee for electronic devices (e.g., computers), and $5,000 per employee to establish
workspaces.
- A-15: Mill & Overlay Pilot Program for Street Pavement Maintenance ($205,177 from the Quarter Cent
Sales Tax for Transportation Fund Balance and Transferring $955,177 to the Fleet Fund)
o Six in favor, none against, and one absent to support the additional funding request, transfer to the
Fleet Fund, and funding source swap.
- A-16: The Road Home’s Family Hotel Winter Interim Plan ($300,000 from General Fund Balance)
o Six in favor, none against, and one absent to support the one-time appropriation for motel and
hotel vouchers available to families experiencing homelessness.
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
Budget Amendment Number Three includes 31 proposed amendments, $3,103,054 in revenues and $15,244,714 in
expenditures of which $1,738,732 is from General Fund Balance and requesting changes to eight funds.
Additionally, the transmittal indicates there is an increase of nine FTE’s. Four of the nine FTEs are being requested
in Item A-1 for the Fire Department and four FTEs are being requested in A-4 for the City Attorney’s new
Legislative Division. The other new FTE is being requested in A-13 in the Finance Department.
Fund Balance
If all the items are adopted as proposed, then General Fund Balance would be projected at 14.3% which is
$5,784,487 above the 13% minimum target of ongoing General Fund revenues. Note: this figure includes both
General Fund and Funding our Future fund balances. The Administration’s chart of projected Fund Balance later
in this report was prepared before the Council voted in item I-1 of Budget Amendment #2 to return $1 million to
General Fund Balance from an affordable housing development grant that did not proceed. This increased the
projected percentage from the 14.08% to 14.3%.
The projected Fund Balance does not include unused FY2023 budgets that drop to Fund Balance at the end of the
fiscal year. The General Fund typically sees $2 million to $3 million drop to Fund Balance annually, which would
increase the Fund Balance percentage. It also does not include actual revenues through the end of the last fiscal
year. The comprehensive annual financial audit will confirm the actual Fund Balance through the end of FY2023.
The annual audit is typically completed in December.
This updated 14.3% combined Fund Balance is higher than estimated during the annual budget deliberations in
June and Budget Amendment #1 last month due to finance department clarification on best practices for what to
include or not include in Fund Balance calculations. The revised estimate did not impact the Funding Our Future
portion of Fund Balance which remains at 14.51% which is $791,501 above the 13% minimum target.
Council Request: Tracking New Ongoing General Fund Costs Approved in Midyear Budget Amendments
Council staff has provided the following list of new ongoing costs to the General Fund. Many of these are new FTE’s approved during this fiscal
year’s budget amendments, noting that each new FTE increases the City’s annual budget if positions are added to the staffing document. Note that
some items in the table below are partially or fully funded by grants. If a grant continues to be awarded to the City in future years, then there may
not be a cost to the General Fund but grant funding is not guaranteed year-over-year.
Budget
Amendment Item
Potential Cost
to FY2025
Annual Budget
Full Time Employee
(FTEs)Notes
#2
Item A-1: Homeless
General Fund
Reallocation Cost
Share for State
Homeless Mitigation
Grant
$53,544
0.5 FTE Community
Development
Grant Specialist for
Homelessness Engagement and
Response Team (HEART)
This position is proposed to be half funded
from the State Homeless Shelter Cities
Mitigation Grant and half by the General Fund
for FY2024. The $107,088 reflects the fully
loaded annual cost for the FTE.
#2
Item A-5: Create a
Public Lands Planning
& Design Division $11,139
Reclassify an existing FTE to a
higher pay grade and director of
new division. Request position
be appointed in a future budget
opening.
Transfer all four (4) full-time landscape
architect positions and associated operating
budget ($543,144) from the Engineering
Division (Public Services Department) to this
new division in the Public Lands Department.
#2
A-6 Sorenson
Janitorial and County
Contract - Senior
Community Programs
Manager
Budget Neutral
(see note to the
right)
1 Senior Community Programs
Manager
This item requires amending an existing
interlocal agreement with the County. At the
time of publishing this report, staff is checking
whether the amendment could result in
additional funding needs to maintain current
levels of service. The item might not be budget
neutral depending on the agreement changes.
#2
A-7: Economic
Development Project
Manager Position $122,000
1 Economic Development Project
Manager
Would be focused on the creation of Special
Assessment Areas or SAAs for business
districts and renewal every three to five years.
#2 A-9: Know Your
Neighbor Program
Expenses
$6,500
Program expenses were inadvertently left out
of the last annual budget
#2 A-10: Love Your
Block Program
Expenses
$55,750
Program expenses were inadvertently left out
of the last annual budget
Budget
Amendment Item
Potential Cost
to FY2025
Annual Budget
Full Time Employee
(FTEs)Notes
#2
Item E-3: Homeless
Shelter Cities
Mitigation Grant
Award
$3,107,201
13 Existing FTEs:
- 2 Police sergeants
- 10 police officers
- 1 Business & community
liaison
4.5 New FTEs:
- 1 Sequential Intercept Case
Manager in the Justice Court
- 0.5 Grant Specialist in CAN
(half grant funded and half by
the General Fund in item above)
- 1 Police sergeant
- 2 police officers
Admin expects to apply for grant funding
annually to cover these costs. General Fund
would not need to cover costs if the State grant
is awarded to the City to fully cover the costs.
Note: Justice Court FTE is part of the City’s
contribution towards implementation of the
“Miami Model” of diversion out of the
homelessness system.
#2
G-1: Greater Salt Lake
Area Clean Energy
and Air Roadmap
Coordinator Position $482,915
(funding is to
cover four years
of new FTE)
1 Coordinator
Four years of salary and benefits. The position
would be responsible for facilitating the
sustained involvement of jurisdiction partners,
managing consultants, assisting with
community engagement, coordinating
stakeholder and public engagement activities
and presentations, and tracking task
completion and achievement.
#3 A-1: Fire Department
(4 New FTEs)$292,638 4 New Medical Response
Paramedic FTEs Annual cost
#3
A-4 City Attorney’s
Office Legislative
Division (4 New FTEs)
$594,441
Legislative Affairs Director
(E34) • Senior City Attorney
(E39) • Special Projects Analyst
(E26) • Administrative Assistant
(N21) Focus on legislative
affairs, with special emphasis on
the legislative session
Annual cost
#3 A-9: Adding
Multimodal
Specialized Road
Markings
$200,000
Budget
Amendment Item
Potential Cost
to FY2025
Annual Budget
Full Time Employee
(FTEs)Notes
Maintenance Funding
into the Streets
Division’s Base
Budget
#3 A-10: Downtown
Parking Pay Station
Replacements
$271,985 Would be paid annually over six fiscal years
from FY2025 – FY2030
TOTALS $4,715,199 28 FTEs of which 24 are
New
Revenue for FY 2023-24 Budget Adjustments
The Administration indicates that there are no revenue projection updates yet for FY2024. An updated is anticipated in
the next budget amendment after the comprehensive annual financial audit is completed.
Fund Balance Chart
The Administration’s chart below shows the current General Fund Balance figures. Fund balance has been updated to include proposed changes for Budget
Amendment #3. Based on those projections the adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 14.08%. After this chart was developed, the Council added $1
million to Fund Balance in Budget Amendment #2 which increased the estimated percentage to 14.3%.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached to the transmittal. The
Administration requests that document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The budget opening is separated in eight different categories:
A.New Budget Items
B.Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C.Grants for New Staff Resources
D.Housekeeping Items
E.Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F.Donations
G.Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I.Council Added Items
Impact Fees Update
The Administration’s transmittal provides an updated summary of impact fee tracking. The information is current as
of 7/20/23. The table below has taken into account impact fees appropriated by the Council on August 15 as part of
the FY2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) . As a result, the City is on-track with impact fee budgeting to have
no refunds during all of FY2024 and FY2025. The transportation section of the City’s Impact Fees Plan was updated
in October 2020. The Administration is working on updates to the fire, parks, and police sections of the plan.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring
Impact Fees
Fire $273,684 More than two years away -
Parks $14,064,637 More than two years away -
Police $1,402,656 More than two years away -
Transportation $6,064,485 More than two years away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
Section A: New Items
Note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions from the
transmittal for some of these items.
A-1: Fire Department Medical Response Paramedics Request for Four New FTEs ($160,519 from
General Fund Balance)
The Administration is proposing a further evolution to staffing for the Medical Response Teams (MRTs). The proposal
would increase the scope and efficiency of the team while reducing the cost of staffing each of four (4) SUV-based light
response MRT units throughout Salt Lake City.
The proposal adds four civilian Paramedic FTEs to the Fire Department. Each would be classified as Single-Role
Paramedics (SRP’s) and would be allocated specifically to MRT positions currently held by firefighter/EMT’s. The
displaced firefighters would fill daily vacancies throughout the department, and staff additional apparatus as the
department grows. This will likely result in overtime budget savings although the exact amount is unknown at this time. In
its current form the MRT is a successful program, but from a budgetary perspective, staffing the MRTs exclusively with
firefighter/EMTs is not the most efficient use of resources. Civilian Paramedics are a less costly position than a sworn
firefighter, and the training time to onboard is significantly shorter (2 weeks rather than 16).
The request for FY2024 would be $150,119 plus some startup costs of $10,400. Full year funding for FY25 would be
$292,638.
Approving this shift mid-year would enable the department to start the hiring process for SRP’s in January and
incorporate them into the MRT’s as soon as February 2024. The department plans to continue gathering data on the
budgetary impact of this shift on the MRT program in order to inform the FY25 budget plan.
Background - The Salt Lake City Fire Department (SLCFD) currently operates three Medical Response Teams (MRTs)
with another funded at the Salt Lake City Airport beginning in January of 2024 for a total of four MRTs staffed by 16
firefighter/EMTs. This initiative was initially funded by the Council in 2014, in part to realize fuel and staffing efficiencies.
Having been proven successful over the years both from a sustainability and staffing perspective, it was expanded in 2022
to include social workers when available. When a social worker is combined with an MRT the City refers to this as a
Community Health Access Team (CHAT). The department has indicated that when all social worker positions are filled,
their goal is to have a social worker on 2 MRT teams (becoming a CHAT), 6 days a week. Staff has included Attachment 3
showing relevant data for the first full year of CHAT operations.
➢Policy question – In addition to the relevant data collected on the MRT program, the Council may wish to ask
the Administration to also collect data on any potential department-wide overtime savings of this shift.
A-2: American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Grant Management Employee Expenses ($14,225 from ARPA)
The Economic Development Department is requesting $14,225 of ARPA funds budgeted in previous fiscal years that was
not used. The funds would cover expenses for an existing employee supporting the Department’s administration of ARPA
local business direct assistance grants and local nonprofit pass-through assistance grants. The Department hired two FTEs
to administer the programs through FY2023. However, the program implementation has taken longer than anticipated.
One of the FTEs has left employment with the City and the position is no longer needed. This additional funding would
provide a total of $125,000 for the second position through the end of FY2024. The two grant assistance programs are
expected to be completed at the end of FY2024 so the second FTE would no longer be needed next fiscal year.
A-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
A-4: City Attorney’s Office Legislative Division Request for Four New FTEs ($297,220 from General Fund
Balance)
The Administration is proposing to add four new FTEs to create a Legislative Division within the City Attorney’s Office.
According to the transmittal, “The primary focus of this division will be on legislative affairs, with special focus on the
legislative session and the various impacts to Salt Lake City.” The amount requested for FY2024 (6 months of funding) is
$297,220.40, which includes one-time startup costs such as computers ($12,000, to be budgeted as a transfer to IMS),
and funding to establish workspaces and necessary equipment ($20,000). The full year cost for the four positions is
$594,440.79. Note: The Administration would like to gauge Council support on this item at the first briefing such as a
straw poll and consider whether to approve this item at the December 12 meeting, so that positions can be
advertised/onboarded prior to the 2024 State Legislative Session which begins Tuesday, January 16, 2024.
The four proposed positions are as follows:
•Legislative Affairs Division Director (Grade E34 - appointed)
•Senior City Attorney (Grade E39 - merit)
•Special Projects Analyst (Grade E26 - merit)
•Administrative Assistant (Grade N21 - merit)
The proposal also includes an ordinance to amend the City Code to document this as a new division and to clarify that the
City Attorney’s Office and Legislative Division report equally to both branches of government. The Administration notes
that the ordinance:
•Establishes that because the City Attorney manages the legal affairs of both the executive and legislative branches
of government, she reports to both the Mayor and Council Chair, and can be removed at the discretion of the
Mayor.
•Clarifies that the City Attorney supervises the Recorder’s Office, Risk Management Division, and Division of
Legislative Affairs.
•Clarifies that the City Attorney may retain outside counsel on behalf of the City, if she concludes that the City
Attorney’s Office has a conflict of interest, is unable, or is unavailable to perform that legal work for the City.
•Creates the Division of Legislative Affairs, which will be responsible for monitoring state and federal legislation
and engaging in advocacy, collaboration, and tracking of all legislative matters for the City.
•Establishes the director of legislative affairs, who will work with both branches of government on the City’s
legislative agenda and will report to both branches of government on legislative priorities and policies.
Staff is working with the Attorney’s Office on several clarifying edits to the ordinance to ensure it matches the intent of the
bullet points listed above. See Attachment 1 for the approved as to form version of the ordinance and Attachment 2 for the
redlined version (showing edits in track changes format).
A-5: Additional Funding for 2100 South Reconstruction in Sugar House ($3,323,950 from Transportation
Impact Fees)
This request would maximize the eligible use of transportation impact fees for complete streets elements in the 2100
South reconstruction project. The total estimated cost for reconstructing 2100 South through the Sugar House Business
District (from 700 East to 1300 East) continues to increase due to inflation, supply chain issues, and an expanded scope in
response to community-desired elements. Construction level designs are anticipated to be completed this winter. Then the
project would go out to bid after which exact costs would be known. Construction may begin in 2024. The table below
summarizes budget line items for this project including the additional funding requested in this budget amendment. No
further funding requests are anticipated for this project.
Source Amount
Original 2100 South Bond Amount $8,000,000
Transportation Impact Fees $660,410
Class C $814,027 (minimum, could increase)
Remaining contingency from 300 West
project that can be applied to 2100 South
$850,000
2022-2023 CIP Complete Streets $300,000
2023-2024 CIP Complete Streets $2,750,000 (of $3,293,000 – the
remainder goes to Virginia Street)
Additional Streets Reconstruction Bond
Funds from Budget Amendment #1
$1,500,000
Requested additional transportation
impact fees in Budget Amendment #3
$3,323,590
Total $18,198,027
Note: Public Utilities elements are funded separately and not reflected in the table
The project webpage is publicly available at www.2100southslc.org
A-6: Additional Funding for 600/700 North Reconstruction ($3,204,371 from Transportation Impact
Fees)
This request would almost maximize the eligible use of transportation impact fees for complete streets elements in the
600/700 North corridor reconstruction and transformation project. It is eligible for another $400,000 of transportation
impact fees however the current unallocated available balance is not enough to cover that additional amount. The Council
may see a request in a future budget opening for the additional $400,000 if enough transportation impact fee revenue
comes in later this fiscal year or next. The total estimated cost for reconstructing the corridor (from Redwood Road to 800
West) continues to increase due to inflation, supply chain issues, and an expanded scope in response to community-
desired elements.
The 2022 Sales Tax Revenue Bond included $9,753,000 for this project. The Council also approved $1,879,654 in FY2022
CIP from Funding Our Future transit dollars for this project. A frequent (every 15 minutes) bus service route runs along
this corridor. Several other smaller funding sources are also anticipated to be used for the project such as Class C funds,
remaining Streets Reconstruction bond funds unused from completed projects, grants, and CIP complete streets funds.
Construction level designs are anticipated to be completed this winter. Then the project would go out to bid after which
exact costs would be known. Construction may begin in 2025.
The project webpage is publicly available at www.600northslc.org
A-7: Security Access Control System Upgrades ($400,000 from General Fund Balance)
Additional one-time funding is needed to continue transitioning City buildings to an upgraded S2 control access system as
the citywide standard. The back-end software was recently upgraded for the Public Safety Building and City Hall. This
item would allow the same upgrade for Plaza 349 and the Justice Court buildings. The funding also includes card readers
and proximity cards (sometimes called smart badges or access cards) for employees using the four buildings. The Council
could discuss this item in a closed session since the topic relates to security devices, personnel, and/or systems.
A-8: Additional Funds to Purchase Electric Trucks instead of Sedans for the Compliance Division
($20,000 from General Fund Balance)
Current funding would allow the Fleet Division to purchase two electric sedans. One sedan to replace a jeep that is past
useful life and another sedan for three new FTEs added in the annual budget to create the RV and Long-term Parking
Enforcement Team. This funding request would allow both vehicles to be electric trucks instead of sedans. The larger
vehicles would provide greater capabilities for the team to operate during the winter, inclement weather, and in
neighborhoods with steep roads. The trucks also have larger cargo space for equipment and supplies such as pay station
kiosks.
A-9: Adding Multimodal Specialized Road Markings Maintenance Funding into the Streets Division’s
Base Budget ($200,000 from General Fund Balance)
The Council did not fund this item in FY2024 CIP but requested the Administration evaluate adding this ongoing
maintenance need to the ongoing base budget for the Public Services Department or the Transportation Division in the
Community and Neighborhoods Department. The Council previously funded this item in CIP for a couple years. The
Administration recommends increasing the Streets Division’s base budget by $200,000. This item would be a one-time
appropriation from General Fund Balance. The next annual budget would then include the $200,000 as ongoing. Council
Members discussed the competitive CIP process, and that basic maintenance and safety funding better belongs in the
annual operating budgets of some departments. Any unused funds at the end of the fiscal year would lapse to General
Fund Balance.
The funding will be used for hiring contractors with specialized equipment. Examples of city-owned assets that could be
maintained include 1,010 bike racks, over three miles of green painted pavement, bike lanes, enhanced crosswalks, and
radar feedback signs. The Public Services Department and Transportation Division will develop optimal maintenance
schedules for these assets and evaluate potential equipment and staffing costs to bring the work in-house vs. the current
approach of using outside contractors.
A-10: Downtown Parking Pay Station Replacements ($135,993 from General Fund Balance)
The blue tower parking pay stations in the downtown are over a decade old and past the recommended useful life. This is
causing increasing maintenance costs and operations issues. The Administration issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) and
is evaluating the bid submissions. This item is being included in a budget amendment because of timeliness challenges
around equipment ordering and delivery windows. Based on the RFP responses, the Administration estimates a seven-
year payment schedule would be best. An initial half year payment would be this fiscal year and then larger payments
evenly spread across years two through seven (fiscal years 2025 – 2030). A shorter payment schedule or a one-time lump-
sum payment could result in savings because the total cost would be less than the seven-year payment schedule. However,
the larger upfront costs for a shorter schedule or one-time lump-sum payment would also reduce the General Fund
Balance more in the short-term.
New parking pay stations are expected to have features not available on the current older equipment such as pay by license
plate capabilities, public service information like events in the area, business and organization sponsored parking
validations, pay parking citations at a station, multiple languages, and pollution sensors. The old meters would be recycled
to the extent possible. New meters may be in new locations based on revenue evaluations for old station locations.
Policy Questions:
➢Public Education – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the public, downtown businesses, and
other organizations will learn about the new parking pay stations. The Council may also wish to ask whether the
existing ParkSLC mobile app will continue, or a new app would be needed.
➢Parking Demand Management – The Council may wish to ask the Administration would the new stations allow
the City to improve parking demand management practices and whether funding would be needed to study
options such as variable pricing during peak hours, paying for shorter or longer time periods, real-time
information on where parking spaces are available (public and private), reservation-based parking spaces,
vending zones like food trucks, and supporting the potential pedestrianization of closing Main Street during
certain times.
A-11: Reappropriation for Rail Spur Removal ($205,000 from General Fund Balance to CIP Fund)
The Council originally approved this funding in Budget Amendment #1 of FY2023. A reappropriation is needed because
the funds were not used by the end of last fiscal year and lapsed to General Fund Balance. The rail spur at 600 West and
500 South was conveyed in 1997 by the City to a private party, with partial consideration for this conveyance being an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain a railroad spur and associated facilities. Since the rail spur has not been
used for over one year, the City is contractually obligated to remove it. There have been a couple similar rail spur removals
in recent years. The Administration stated this is believed to be the last rail spur removal in the area. Note that the budget
spreadsheet in the Administration’s transmittal mistakenly identifies this item as ongoing when the funding is one-time.
A-12: Police Officer Overtime Related to the Sanctioned Campground Pilot Program ($500,000 from
ARPA Funds Unused in Prior Fiscal Years)
This item would provide one-time funding for police officer overtime shifts at and in the area around the sanctioned
campground pilot program (“temporary shelter community”) at approximately 300 South and 600 West. It is expected to
operate until April 30, 2024. The overtime shifts would be voluntary so some might go unfilled. The overtime rate would
be $65/hour as an incentive for shifts to be filled. The Police Department will evaluate staffing levels to determine how
many officers are needed by shift (e.g., days, evenings, and nights). The Department will also utilize vacancy savings to
fund additional overtime shifts as needed. Over the five months of December through April, the $500,000 could provide
an average of five police officers working 10-hour overtime shifts per day. The actual staffing levels per day and time of day
will vary based on officers signing up for voluntary shifts, the volume of calls for service, proactive patrols, and other
factors.
At the time of publishing this staff report an ARPA reconciliation was pending to show which budgets were unused in
prior fiscal years and whether any more ARPA funding remains available for repurposing. The Council previously put $1.5
million from the General Fund into a holding account for potential expenses related to the temporary sanctioned
campground. All those funds remain in the holding account.
Policy Questions:
➢Where would officers be for overtime shifts? – The Council may wish to ask the Administration would officers be
inside the sanctioned campground, immediately around it, and/or how wide of an area around it would be
proactively patrolled?
➢Additional Funding Needs – The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether more funding is anticipated
to be needed for the temporary sanctioned campground’s operations, mitigating public safety issues, or other
related costs.
A-13: New Financial Grant Analyst FTE in the Finance Department for Grants Administered by the
Housing Stability Division ($46,643 from CDBG and $14,548 from ARPA)
This request would fund one FTE for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2024. The position is intended to oversee grants
administered by the Housing Stability Program. The proposed grant analyst will work under the direction of the Deputy
Director of Finance and will assist in the financial monitoring of multiple grants to ensure compliance with city financial
processes as well as state and federal grant requirements. The position will be split across two grant funding sources –
75% CDBG and 25% from ARPA. A job description for this position was included in the Administration’s transmittal. The
City has experienced a significant increase in the number and complexity of grant applications and grant awards over the
past few years. This trend is expected to continue as departments apply for more grants such as billions of dollars in
federal grants spread over multiple years from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act.
Historically, the City has not used all the available funding from CDBG to cover the costs of administering the program as
allowed under U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations. There is anticipated to be enough ongoing
CDBG funding to help cover most costs related to this new FTE over the long-term. The remaining 25% of the costs may be
covered by other grant funding depending on how much the FTE directly works on those programs. The ability to use
grant funds for personnel expenses is often limited to hours spent working directly on the grant programs.
➢Policy question: The Council may wish to ask the Administration to provide metrics on the number of grant
applications and awards in recent years and are additional resources (e.g., software, FTEs, trainings) needed to
improve management of grants.
A-14: Consulting for Enterprise Billing Systems ($250,000 from the IMS Fund Balance)
This item was previously appropriated in Budget Amendment 5 of FY2023 but, due to delays in the RFP process, was
ineligible to be encumbered prior to the fiscal year end and fell to IMS’s fund balance. The RFP process is underway, and
the Department wishes to reappropriate this funding.
The Public Utilities Billing System (PUBS) was developed and expanded by IMS over the past two decades. The system is
reaching the end of life and needs to be replaced. In addition to Public Utilities, some General Fund departments use the
system, like Sustainability and Community and Neighborhoods. This funding is to hire a consultant to evaluate the City’s
needs and identify the best path for a smooth implementation of the system’s replacement. Microsoft support for the
current system is expected to end as soon as July 2024.
A-15: Mill & Overlay Pilot Program for Street Pavement Maintenance ($205,177 from the Quarter Cent
Sales Tax for Transportation Fund Balance and Transferring $955,177 to the Fleet Fund)
The Council approved $750,000 in FY2024 CIP from quarter cent sales tax for transportation funds to purchase an
asphalt paver and a cold-milling machine that do this type of pavement maintenance. In the FY2024 annual budget, the
Council also approved $130,000 ongoing from Funding Our Future for program supplies. The Public Services Department
was notified that the manufacturer increased prices after these appropriations were approved. $205,177 is needed in
addition to the $750,000 in CIP to purchase the two machines. The Department has previously rented these machines.
Purchasing the machines is estimated to be a more cost-effective option in the long term than continuing to rent.
This item would also swap the funding sources for two projects to better align funding eligibilities with project uses. At the
time of publishing this report, staff has requested information on the allowable uses of quarter cent sales tax for
transportation funds as equipment purchases were previously thought to be eligible. The Mill & Overlay equipment would
be shifted away from quarter cent sales tax for transportation funds to General Fund dollars and Class C (gas tax) funds
that were also approved by the Council in FY2024 CIP. An equivalent $750,000 for complete streets reconstruction
projects would be shifted away from General Fund dollars and Class C (gas tax) funds to the quarter cent sales tax for
transportation funds.
The Mill and Overlay provides a pavement maintenance option that is greater than filling a pothole or chip & slurry
surface treatments and less than a full street reconstruction. For example, cutting down a few inches into deteriorated
asphalt and removing a several foot stretch and then backfilling with new asphalt.
➢Policy question: The Council may wish to consider a straw poll for this item so the Department could proceed
with drafting contracts before the next price increase which is anticipated to be in mid-December.
A-16: The Road Home’s Family Hotel Winter Interim Plan ($300,000 from General Fund Balance)
This item would provide one-time funding to assist the State and The Road Home’s efforts to provide motel rooms to
families experiencing homelessness from December 2023 to June 2024. The motel vouchers could be considered a
stopgap option until a new family non-congregate shelter opens next spring / summer. This new facility will be in addition
to the existing Midvale Family Recourse Center or MFRC. The average cost is estimated at $600-800 per week for a hotel
room serving a family of four. Actual costs could be more or less depending on the size of a family and variable rates at
different hotels. A one-page summary of the plan is shown as the last page of the Administration’s transmittal. The Road
Home stated there are existing contracts with motels for 12 rooms and one case manager assigned to the program.
Additional case managers would be hired per 12 hotel rooms that are contracted to ensure adequate staffing to workload
ratios. A supportive services manager is also anticipated to be hired.
The Administration has requested a straw poll on this item to facilitate contract development in advance of the final
Council vote.
➢Policy Question: The Council may wish to ask the Administration what is the funding gap for the overall plan
and would the City’s $300,000 fill the existing funding gap? Adding up all the costs on the one-page summary
indicates the total cost could exceed $1 million. The Council may also wish to task what other entities are
contributing funding towards the plan?
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
(None)
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
(None)
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Moving Funding for Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Substation
and Downtown Central Project ($513,208 from CAN to Public Services)
Funding for the Downtown Central Precinct Tenant Improvements for North Temple Sub Station and Downtown Central
Project in the amount of $513,208 was added by the Council to the CAN budget during the budget decision making
process. However, this funding should have gone to Public Services since it will be the Facilities division that will be
managing the improvements. This item does not allocate any additional funding, but simply moves funding from one
department to another for the same work.
D-2: IMS FY 2023 Encumbrance Roll Forward ($4,269,083)
IMS has encumbered money that was expected to be paid out of the FY23 funds and either will need to be paid, or has
already been paid in FY24. These encumbrances are listed in the Carry Over Encumbrance reports. All of these items have
been approved for purchase by central finance in a prior year. These expenses will be paid for by the annual allocation that
IMS uses to collect its revenue on an annual basis.
D-3: Move Cultural Core Funding to Non-Departmental from Arts Council Cost Center ($250,000)
This item is to move funds from the Art’s Council Division to the Economic Development’s Non-Departmental budget.
This is an effort to align funding with the appropriate cost center within the new financial system.
Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources
(None)
Section F: Donations
(None)
Section G: Grant Consent Agenda
G-1: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry ($200,000 from Misc. Grants)
The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (FFSL) has awarded Salt Lake City $200,000 for the purposes of
removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris from the Jordan River from 2100
South to 2400 North. This funding will provide for safer conditions on the river channel for recreational boaters. A
public hearing was held on September 19, 2023.
G-2: Department of Workforce Services-- Know Your Neighbor ($100,000 from Misc. Grants)
DWS is extending the Salt Lake City's Know Your Neighbor contract. The original contract was for $100,000 to pay for
the salary and benefits of a full-time volunteer coordinator from October 1, 2022, to September 30,2023. The
extension will include an increase of $100,000 to extend the period for one year starting October 1, 2023, and ending
September 30, 2024. Thus, making the total amount of the contract $200,000. This is a refugee volunteer program
that runs through the Mayor’s office. This program benefits refugee clients as well as people from the larger
community who volunteer to help. Public Hearing will be held November 7, 2023. No match is required.
G-3: EPA Salt Lake City Schovaers Electronics Cleanup ($495,200 from Misc. Grants)
This is one of two Brownfields grants awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Salt Lake City
area for the purpose of cleaning up land of hazardous substances, pollutant or contaminants for the revitalization of
the properties. These grants are part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). This grant has been
awarded to Salt Lake City in the amount of $495,200 to conduct remediation activities at the former Schovaers site
(22 South Jeremy Street) in Salt Lake City. A second grant for $1 million was awarded to Salt Lake County for the
assessment and cleanup projects in Magna Township. A public hearing was held on December 13, 2022. No match is
required.
G-4: Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) ($38,000 from Misc. Grants)
The Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) provides state, local, tribal and territorial emergency
management agencies with the resources required for implementation of the National Preparedness System and
works toward the National Preparedness Goal of a secure and resilient nation. This is the annual allocation from the
state and will be used to support Emergency Management functions and programs. A public hearing was held on May
16, 2023. A 50% match is required.
G-5: Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) - SLCPD Victim Advocates ($346,132 from Misc. Grants)
The Salt Lake City Police Department is requesting continuation funding for our SLCPD VOCA grant funded Victim
Advocate positions. Additionally, there are emergency funds for assisting victims included in the application. The
grant will continue to fund 2.69 existing FTEs and includes emergency funds that will be used to help victims. This is a
two-year grant. The period of performance starts July 1, 2023, and ends June 30,2025. A public hearing was held on
November 7, 2023. No match is required.
G-6: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant ($386,620 from Misc. Grants)
The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG) allows states and local governments to support
a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime and to improve the criminal justice system, some of which
could have environmental impacts. The Salt Lake City Police Department will use this money for the following:
•Professional Travel Training for Sworn and Civilian Staff - $40,125 • Pole Cameras - $20,000 • High Speed License
Plate Recognition (+Accessories) - $22,970 • Climbing Equipment - $20,160 • Night Vision Goggles and Mounts -
$49,098 • Optics - $11,192 • Ballistic Rated Windshields - $19,500 • Surveillance Trailer Maintenance and
Replacement - $14,000 • K9 GPS and Narcotics Enforcement Supplies - $6,132 • Community Policing and Targeted
Enforcement Overtime - $76,100 • Subaward to Salt Lake County (BJA allocation) - $53,672 • Subaward to Unified
Police Department (BJA allocation) - $53,671 No new staff members are proposed as part of this item. A public
hearing was held on September 19, 2023. No match is required.
G-7: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Rosewood Park ($29,508 from Misc. Grants)
This item supports necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) approved dual port charger at Rosewood
Park, located at 1400 North 1200 West in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There is no
cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain
functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive
payment. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $29,507.51 or 80% of the total project cost.
A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023 No match is required.
G-8: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Riverside Park ($20,517 from Misc. Grants)
This item supports necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) dual port AC Level 2 charger at Riverside
Park, located at 1450 West Leadville Avenue in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the public 24/7. There
is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to
maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the
incentive payment. No new staff positions. The maintenance cost of this item is lesser of the following: $20,517.38 or
80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required.
G-9: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Regional Athletic Complex ($12,882 from Misc. Grants)
This item supports the necessary infrastructure for the installation of one (1) approved dual port AC Level 2 charger at
the Regional Athletic Complex, located at 2080 Rose Park Lane in Salt Lake City. This charger will be available to the
public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the
participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from
the date of the incentive payment. No new staff members. The maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the
following: $12,881.77 or 80% of the total project cost. A public hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is
required.
G-10: Rocky Mountain Power Make Ready Day Riverside Library ($22,642 from Misc. Grants)
This item supports the necessary infrastructure for the installation of two (2) approved dual port AC Level 2 chargers
at the Day Riverside Library, located at 1575 West 1000 North in Salt Lake City. The project will result in a total of
four (4) charging ports. The chargers will be available to the public 24/7. There is no cost related to the charger in this
incentive. Accepting the incentive payment obligates the participant to maintain functioning chargers and allow public
access 24/7 for a minimum of five years, starting from the date of the incentive payment. No new staff members. The
maintenance cost of this item is the lesser of the following: $22,642.33 or 80% of the total project cost. A public
hearing was held on July 18, 2023. No match is required.
G-11: FEMA Power Poles Cameras ($15,000 from Misc. Grants)
FEMA is providing funding to the Fire Department for the temporary installation of cameras onto existing powers
poles as needed. A public hearing was held May 16, 2023. No match is required.
G-12: Utah Crimes Against Children Task Force
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has created the Utah Internet Crimes Against
Children (ICAC) Task Force Program, which is a national network of state and local law enforcement cybercrime units.
The national ICAC program assists state and local law enforcement agencies to develop an effective response to cyber
enticement, sexual exploitation of a minor, and other child sexual abuse material cases. The Police Department will
utilize this funding to support its ongoing efforts to protect children from cybercrime. Public Hearing was held on
August 15, 2023. No match is required.
Section I: Council-Added Items
I-1: Releasing Funds for Physical Security Improvements to City Hall ($154,000 from CIP Holding
Account)
In Budget Amendment #5 of FY2023, the Council put $1 million into a Capital Improvement Program or CIP Fund
holding account for one-time to be determined physical security improvements to City Hall. The Public Services
Department is requesting these funds in a budget amendment so the improvements could be done in tandem with current
earthquake repairs to minimize disruptions in the building. The total project cost is estimated at $240,886. The FY2023
annual budget included funding for building security which is $86,886 of the project cost. If the Council approves this
item, then the holding account would have a remaining balance of $846,000. The Council could discuss this item in a
closed session since the topic relates to security devices, personnel, and/or systems.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Division of Legislative Affairs Ordinance Approved as to Form
2. Division of Legislative Affairs Ordinance Redline
3. Salt Lake City Metered Parking Analysis Executive Summary Presentation
4. Salt Lake City Metered Parking Analysis Final Report November 2022
ACRONYMS
CAN – Department of Community and Neighborhoods
CIP – Capital Improvement Program Fund
EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FTE – Full Time Employee
FY – Fiscal Year
GF – General Fund
FOF – Funding Our Future
IMS – Information Management Services
Misc. – Miscellaneous
OJJDP – Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
RDA – Redevelopment Agency
SAA – Special Assessment Area
TBD – To Be Determined
VOCA – Victims of Crime Act
Salt Lake City
Metered Parking
Analysis
Executive Summary Presentation
Why We’re Doing This
•Downtown and other key neighborhoods have seen growth and other changes
that have affected on-street parking occupancy and usage habits.
•Salt Lake City will soon replace its existing parking meters with all-new
equipment.
•As part of the replacement process, parking planning staff wanted to evaluate
the current system to understand existing operating efficiencies, trends in meter
usage, changes in land use and density, and how existing policies, rates, and fees
compare to peer cities.
•Based on information gathered and data analyzed, the number and locations of meters in the
existing paid area can be right-sized and adjusted to fit current needs.
•That information can also be combined with an analysis of future growth areas to provide
quantity and cost estimates for potential future expansion of parking meters outside of the
existing paid area.
•Finally, the information can help Salt Lake City to adjust their policies, rates, and fees in order
to optimize operations, streamline enforcement, and potentially increase revenue by bringing
policies, rates, and fees more in line with peer city averages and best practices.
Summary of Existing Conditions
HISTORICAL TRENDS
8%12%
18%
24%
30%
38%
45%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
2015 -
2016
2016 -
2017
2017 -
2018
2018 -
2019
2019 -
2020
2020 -
2021
2021 -
2022
Number
of Meters*
280
CURRENT USAGE (2021 –2022)
Average Number of Meters per
Block Face (By Land Use)
1.80 -2.74
Pay-by-App Share of Transactions
for Most Meters
41% -60%
852,998
Total Transactions
(Including Pay-by-App)
Average Number of Transactions
per Meter (Including Pay-by-App)
3,015
Average Number of Transactions
per Meter (Including Pay-by-App)
* Number of deployed and operational
meters as of August 2022
(278 in November 2022)
METER
REQUIREMENTS*
Requirements & Thresholds
CRITERIA
FOR
KEEPING
METERS
Minimum
Number
of
Transactions
1,300
Maximum Share
of
Pay-by-App
Transactions
60%
250 Feet Max
DistanceM
A
I
N
S
T
A
T
E
2 per
Block
Face
* Minimum requirements. May differ in some
land use contexts.
Growth Areas
Cost & Quantity Estimates
27
Total Number of Meter
Locations Identified as
Potential Candidates for
Removal
Cost Estimate Range for
Replacement of Meters
for…
280
Meters
263
Meters
$1.4 –
$2.2M
$1.3 –
$2.1M
MID-TO LONG-TERM
* Sugar House block faces are shorter than Downtown ones (360 feet)
Cost Estimate Range for
Installation of New Meters
at 2 Meters per Block Face
$1.6 –
$2.5M
Number of Meters to
Cover Mid/Long-Term Area
at 1 Meter per Block Face*
143
Number of Meters to
Cover Mid/Long-Term Area
at 2 Meters per Block Face
310
Cost Estimate Range for
Installation of New Meters
at 1 Meter per Block Face
$715k –
$1.1M
Downtown Sugar House
EXISTING/
CURRENT
Number of Meters
Needed to Cover
Short/Mid-Term Area at
2 Meters per Block Face
488
Cost Estimate Range
for Installation of
New Meters at 2 per
Block Face
$2.4M –
$3.9M
SHORT-TO
MID-TERM
Existing Policies, Rates, & Fees SELECTED EXISTINGSLC
HOURS OF
ENFORCEMENT
RATES
TIME LIMITS
DAYS OF
THE WEEK
ZONE
STRUCTURE
CITATION FINES
$
$
No specific overnight management policy
is currently in place
$2.25 per hour (flat rate for
entire system).
2 hours per day (across entire
system).
8 AM –8 PM, Mon –Sat (across
entire system).
Mon –Fri.
Single zone (same rates, hours
across entire paid area).
Flat fine structure, lower fines
for some violations than peer
city average. Schedule of Selected Fines
No special event rates or hours of
enforcement are currently in place
Selected On-Street Violation
& Other Violation Metric Salt Lake City
Overtime Meter $35
Meter Violation*$75
Parking Outside of Allowed
Hours $23
"Feeding the Meter"$23
Accessible Space Violation $150
Graduated Fines?No
Notes
* Section 12.56.150 (D) of the Salt Lake City Code specifies that the
presence of a vehicle in a parking space for which the paid time
expired at least two hours prior to the issuance of the parking
citation shall be considered a willful or egregious violation.
Future Policies, Rates, & Fees
HOURS OF
ENFORCEMENT
RATES
TIME LIMITS
DAYS OF
THE WEEK
ZONE
STRUCTURE
CITATION FINES
$
$
Tiered rate system. $2.50 per hour (for first two
hours), $5 per hour (3rd hour), $10 per hour (4th
hour).
4 hours per day. Consider lower time limit in some
very high demand spaces.
Extend to 10 PM in existing paid area. Consider later
end time for areas with high late-night demand and
earlier end time for areas with low evening demand.
Mon –Sat to align with enforcement hours.
Tiered or graduated rate structure with multiple
zones based on demand/activity. Sugar House should
be its own zone with different rate structure.
Increase fines to be in line with peer city averages
and Utah Uniform Fine Schedule. Consider graduated
fine structure.
SUGGESTED ACTIONS
In the future, consider
establishing special
zone or overlay around
Vivint Arena where
special event rates and
hours of enforcement
would apply during
events to incentivize
use of off-street
parking
No specific overnight
management policy
action recommended at
this time
Project #
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 1
Salt Lake City
Metered Parking Analysis
(DRAFT)
Prepared for: Salt Lake City Corporation
November 18, 2022
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 5
Introduction 5
Existing Metered Parking 5
Evaluation of Metered Parking 5
Potential Expansion of Parking Meters 6
Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees 7
Introduction & Study Area 9
Introduction 9
Study Area 10
Existing Metered Parking Key Takeaways 16
Existing Metered Parking 17
Historical Systemwide Trends 17
Analysis of Multi-Space Meter Usage 18
Methodology 18
Total Transactions by Multi-Space Meter Location 19
Pay-by-App vs. Multi-Space Meter Transactions 24
Metered Parking Evaluation Key Takeaways 27
Evaluation of Metered Parking 28
Evaluation Criteria 28
Removing Meters in Existing Paid Areas 29
Adding Meters in Existing Paid Areas 29
Installing Meters in Existing Unpaid Areas 29
Requirements & Thresholds 30
Requirements 30
Thresholds for Keeping Meters 31
Thresholds for Adding Meters 32
Existing Meters with Thresholds Applied 33
Recommendations 36
Adding Meters 36
Removing Existing Meters 36
Replacement Cost and Quantity Estimates 38
Potential Expansion of Parking Meters Key Takeaways 40
Potential Expansion of Parking Meters 41
Short to Mid Term 41
Cost and Quantity Estimates 43
Mid to Long Term 43
Cost and Quantity Estimates 48
Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees Key Takeaways 51
Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees 52
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 2
Existing Policies, Rates, & Fees in Salt Lake City 52
On-Street Parking Time Limits 52
On-Street Parking Rates 52
On-Street Parking Hours and Days of Enforcement 52
Special Events 53
Overnight Parking 53
“Move-It” Policy 53
Metered Parking Violations and Fines 54
Peer City Benchmarking 55
On-Street Parking Time Limits 55
On-Street Parking Rates 56
On-Street Parking Hours and Days of Enforcement 56
Special Events 57
Overnight Parking 57
“Move-It” Policy 58
Metered Parking Violations and Fines 58
Peer City Benchmarking Key Takeaways 60
Selected Off-Street Parking Rates & Fees 61
Recommendations & Other Suggested Items 63
On-Street Parking Time Limits 63
On-Street Parking Rates 63
On-Street Hours and Days of Enforcement 65
Special Events 66
Overnight Parking 66
Move-It Policy 66
Violations & Fines 67
Appendix 69
Evaluation of Metered Parking 69
Recommendations 69
Potential Expansion of Parking Meters 70
Mid to Long Term 70
Figures and Tables
Figure 1. Study Area 11
Figure 2. Existing Paid Area and Multi-Space Meter Locations 13
Figure 3. Existing Land Uses/Zoning and Multi-Space Meter Locations 14
Figure 4. Pay-by-App vs. Multi-Space Meter Transactions by Year (July 2015 – June 2022) 17
Figure 5. Pay-by-App vs. Multi-Space Meter Transactions by Month (July 2021 – June 2022) 18
Figure 6. Proportional Transaction Volume by Multi-Space Meter (July 2021 – June 2022) 20
Figure 7. Percent Distribution of Multi-Space Meters by Transaction Volume (July 2021 – June 2022) 21
Figure 8. Transaction Volume by Station with Land Uses/Zoning 22
Figure 9. Average Number of Meters per Block Face by Zone 23
Figure 10. Average Number of Meters per Block Face by General Land Use Category 23
Figure 11. Total Transactions & Pay-by-App Percentage by Meter (July 2021 – June 2022) 24
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 3
Figure 12. Multi-Space Meters by Pay-by-App Percent Share (July 2021 - June 2022) 25
Figure 13. Evaluation Matrix for Removing Meters in Existing Paid Areas 29
Figure 14. Evaluation Matrix for Adding Meters in Existing Paid Areas 29
Figure 15. Evaluation Matrix for Installing Meters in Existing Unpaid Areas 30
Figure 16. Minimum Requirements for Meters 30
Figure 17. Thresholds for Keeping Existing Meters 31
Figure 18. Summarized Equation for Determining Break-Even Number of Transactions per Year 32
Figure 19. Thresholds for Adding Meters to Block Faces with Existing Meters 32
Figure 20. Total Transactions and Pay-by-App Usage Over/Under Established Thresholds 34
Figure 21. Average Number of Meters per Block Face that Meet Transaction Threshold by Zone 35
Figure 22. Average Number of Meters per Block Face that Meet Transaction Threshold by Land Use Category 35
Figure 23. Multi-Space Meter Candidates for Removal in Existing Paid System 37
Figure 24. Estimated Cost Range for Replacing Existing Meters 38
Figure 25. Future Downtown Developments (July 2022) 41
Figure 26. Short-Term and Mid-Term Downtown Growth Area and Existing Paid Parking Area 42
Figure 27. Cost Estimates for Expansion of Paid Area into Short- and Mid-Term Downtown Growth Areas 43
Figure 28. Future Land Uses Generalized and Consolidated 45
Figure 29. Number of Meters by Land Use Density and General Land Use 46
Figure 30. Mid-Term & Long-Term Growth Areas 47
Figure 31. Block Face Quantity Estimates in Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Downtown) 48
Figure 32. Cost Estimates for Metered Parking Expansion into Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Downtown) 48
Figure 33. Block Face Quantity Estimates in Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Sugar House) 49
Figure 34. Cost Estimates for Metered Parking Expansion into Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Sugar House) 49
Figure 35. On-Street Parking Time Limits (Salt Lake City) 52
Figure 36. On-Street Parking Rates (Salt Lake City) 52
Figure 37. On-Street Hours of Enforcement (Salt Lake City) 52
Figure 38. Special Event Parking Metrics (Salt Lake City) 53
Figure 39. Overnight Parking Metrics (Salt Lake City) 53
Figure 40. Move-it Policies (Salt Lake City) 53
Figure 41. Metered Parking Violations and Fines (Salt Lake City) 54
Figure 42. On-Street Parking Time Limits (Peer Cities) 55
Figure 43. On-Street Parking Rates (Peer Cities) 56
Figure 44. On-Street Hours of Enforcement (Peer Cities) 56
Figure 45. Special Event Parking Metrics (Peer Cities) 57
Figure 46. Overnight Parking Metrics (Peer Cities) 57
Figure 47. Move-it Policies (Peer Cities) 58
Figure 48. Metered Parking Violations and Fines (Peer Cities) 58
Figure 49. Metered Parking Violations and Fines - Summary Statistics (Peer Cities) 59
Figure 50. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates in Downtown Salt Lake City (Day Parking) 61
Figure 51. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates (Day Parking) – Summary Statistics 62
Figure 52. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates in Downtown Salt Lake City (Monthly Permit Parking) 62
Figure 53. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates (Monthly Parking) – Summary Statistics 62
Figure 54. Candidates for Removal in Existing Paid Area 69
Figure 55. Specific Land Uses per Neighborhood Plan and Corresponding Generalized Land Uses 70
Figure 56. Composite of Future Land Use Maps/Plans onto Study Areas 71
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 4
Executive Summary 01
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 5
Executive Summary
Introduction
Salt Lake City is currently in the process evaluating the multi-space parking meter system to understand existing
operating efficiencies, trends in existing meter usage, changes in land uses and density, and how existing hours of
operation, rates, and fees compare to peer cities. In total, there were 280 multi-space meters across the system
that are deployed and operational as of August 2022. It should be noted that as of November 2022, there were
278 meters in operation.
Currently, paid parking is limited to the central business district and immediately adjacent areas, as well as two
additional small paid that are not contiguous to the main paid area along “main street”-type corridors located to
the east of the CBD.
Existing Metered Parking
The total number of transactions went down in 2020 but has started to increase again in 2021. Between July
2021 and June 2022, there were 852,998 transactions, down from 1,299,735 from 2015 to 2016. The share of all
transactions conducted with pay-by-app, instead of at the meter, has increased from 8% in 2015 to 45% today.
Currently, the highest-usage meters were clustered along the 300 S. corridor within the CBD as well as along 100
S. and at certain key intersections. Most meters saw between 1,000 and 5,000 transactions from 2020 – 2021.
The average number of meters per block face ranged from 1.80 to 2.74, depending on land use.
No clear correlation between certain areas/land uses and pay-by-app usage was observed. However, a few
“hotspots” and “coldspots” were apparent where pay-by-app use was notably higher or lower than average. The
pay-by-app share of total transactions was between 41% and 60% for most meters, with only 6% falling under
20% pay-by-app or exceeding 60% pay-by-app.
Evaluation of Metered Parking
Walker has established different criteria for evaluating whether parking meters should be considered for removal,
addition, or keeping in existing paid areas, as well as for determining whether an existing unpaid area may be a
candidate for installing meters
Criteria established include setting a minimum number of meters per block face and a maximum distance
between meters along a block face, determining the minimum number of transactions per year for a meter to be
financially self-sufficient, and determining a minimum percentage of transactions that occur at the meter.
Using evaluation matrices and associated criteria, Walker has determined specific minimum requirements that
should be met for all meters, as well as thresholds for determining whether a meter may be a candidate for
removal.
The established requirements for all meters are as follows:
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 6
• A minimum of two meter per block face with paid parking.
• A maximum of 250 feet distance between a meter and the farthest parking space.
• That maximum decreases to 150 feet for human services land uses.
• For accessible spaces, meters should be located as close as possible to such spaces.
The established thresholds for keeping meters are as follows:
• A minimum of 1,300 transactions per year (at the meter + pay-by-app.
• Percent share of transactions at the meter is at least 40%.
The established threshold for adding meters is if least one meter on a block face sees frequent “congestion.”
When applying thresholds, 85 of 280 meters do not currently meet the transaction threshold. Also, 9 out of 279
see use of pay-by-app at or above 60%. By land use, the average number of meters per block face that met the
transaction threshold ranged from 0.44 for Residential Mixed Use to 2.74 for high-activity areas in the CBD.
After evaluating the existing paid area, and after considering established requirements, Walker iden tified 27
meters that may be candidates for removal. At this time, Walker did not identify any block faces where more
meters are needed. Further evaluation is recommended for suggested candidates for removal, such as whether
there is accessible parking on the block face.
In terms of cost estimates, to replace all 280 existing meters, Walker estimates an initial, up-front cost range of
between about $1.4 million and $2.2 million. To replace all meters minus the meters identified as potential
candidates for removal, the initial, up-front cost range is estimated to be between $1.3 million and $2.1 million.
By moving from 280 to 263 meters, the City would save between 85k and $136k.
Potential Expansion of Parking Meters
In the short to mid term, there are about 68 developments in or near downtown that are planned or under
construction. A contiguous area that encompasses all new developments would represent about a 2.4x increase
in the size of the existing metered parking area, or an increase of 488 meters (at 2 meters per block face). The
cost range per meter for such an expansion is estimated to range from about $2.4 million to $5.9 million,
depending on where the cost per meter would fall within the given cost range.
In the mid to long term, future land use maps for neighborhood areas show potential increases in mid- and high-
density residential, commercial, and mixed-use development beyond the area that encompasses known future
development planned or under construction. If the City were to create paid parking zones within future mid- and
high-density residential, commercial, and mixed-use areas, for all such areas except high-activity commercial,
Walker would recommend an average of about 2 meters per block face. For high-activity commercial, Walker
would recommend an average of about 3 meters per block face.
In the Downtown study area, if parking meters were to be extended to the area defined as the short/mid-term
growth area, about 310 meters would be needed in all (at 2 meters per block face). The cost range per meter for
such an expansion is estimated to range from about $1.6 million to $2.5 million, depending on where the cost per
meter would fall within the given cost range.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 7
In the Sugar House study area, if parking meters were to be extended to the area defined as the short/mid-term
growth area, 143 meters would be needed in all (at 1 meter per block face). The cost range per meter for such an
expansion is estimated to range from about $715k to $1.1 million, depending on where the cost per meter would
fall within the given cost range. For this area, Walker recommends 1 meter per block face instead of 2 due to
block faces that are much shorter than in downtown.
Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees
Compared to peer cities, in general, Salt Lake City is the only city to have uniform time limits in place for metered
parking, to have a flat hourly rate for all paid parking that does not vary by area, length of stay, or tier, to not
charge for parking on Saturdays, and to have uniform hours of enforcement in place for all paid areas. Salt Lake
City also lacks special event pricing and time limits, and the city’s fine for accessible parking space violations is less
than half the average fine for peer cities examined and is less than the suggested fine published by the Utah State
Court System.
Selected recommendations are as follows:
• Increase time limit for most paid parking spaces from 2 to 4 hours.
• Increase base rate from $2.25 to $2.50 per hour within existing paid area.
• Move to a tiered rate structure where the first two hours are $2.50 per hour, the third hour is $5, and the
4th hour is $10.
• Expand paid parking into Saturdays, which would align paid parking hours with current enforcement
hours across the week.
• Extend the enforcement period for all days to 10 PM.
• Increase fines for all parking violation types discussed in this study to be more in line with peer city
averages and the suggested fines listed in the Utah State Courts’ 2022 Uniform Fines Schedule.
Other suggested items to consider are as follows:
• A tiered or graduated rate structure for some or all paid parking areas.
• Increase or eliminate time limits in conjunction with other suggested items regarding parking rates.
• Time limits of less than 2 hours for certain spaces in very high demand areas or in other special contexts
• Consider zone-based pricing based on demand patterns, with higher rates in high-demand areas and
lower rates in lower-demand areas.
o Sugar House should be its own zone when or if paid parking were to be extended to that area.
o The existing paid area should be divided into 2 or more zones.
o More zones could be added if the existing paid area downtown were to be enlarged.
• Adopt a later stop time for enforcement in areas and on days where on-street parking usage is elevated
past 10 PM, such as night life areas, and an earlier stop time for enforcement where parking usage
decreases after a certain hour, such as office
• Establish a special overlay zone around Vivint Arena where special event rates and hours would apply
during large events
• Increase time period for which a vehicle may not be allowed to return to the same parking space or block
face to at least 4 hours if time limits are expanded to 4 hours.
• Graduated fine structure where fines increase for subsequent violations within a calendar year.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 8
Introduction &
Study Area
02
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 9
Introduction & Study Area
Introduction
In 2012, the City of Salt Lake City began replacing its single -space meter infrastructure with a new system of
multi-space meters. In the new system, 1 to 4 meters per block face, along with a handful located along mid-
block alleys and in certain high-activity off-street areas, serve all individual paid parking spaces along the block
face within paid parking areas.
Since multi-space meters were first implemented, downtown Salt Lake City and other key neighborhoods and
areas within the City have seen growth, development, redevelopment, and land use changes. These changes
have potentially affected on-street parking occupancy and usage habits within existing paid parking areas and
currently unmanaged and/or free parking areas. Within the existing paid parking areas, such changes have also
potentially influenced usage at existing meters. Some block faces within the paid area may have seen increased
use of on-street paid parking, while others have seen decreases.
In addition, managed parking technology has dramatically advanced within the last decade. In 2012, the major
change of note was the ability for customers to use a credit card to furnish payment, though the system also
allowed for the use of payment via a smartphone app. In 2012, such app usage to render payment represented
only a small fraction of total transactions. However, over the last decade, the use of pay-by-app using a
smartphone as a payment option has grown considerably. For Salt Lake City’s multi-space meter system, pay-by-
app services are provided through the Passport platform. While the use of pay-by-app relative to other multi-
space meter payment methods has increased across the system, the relative increase may be higher within some
areas and for some multi-space meters compared to others.
While one upgrade to the multi-space system has been performed since the initial installation, the existing
contracts for the current system, provided by IPS Smart Meters, are expiring soon. As such, the City is looking to
revamp and overhaul its decade-old multi-space infrastructure with a new, state-of-the-art metered parking
system.
Understanding trends in parking habits and multi-space meter usage, as well as changes in land uses and density
that have occurred and may occur in the near future, will help to inform data-driven decisions on changes that
can be made to the paid parking system when it is overhauled that will allow the system to operate more
efficiently, providing the right balance of multi-space meters for customer use while reducing the cost of
operations and maintenance and reducing sidewalk clutter.
To help the City understand these trends and changes, and also to accomplish its goals pertaining to the paid
parking system, Walker Consultants (“Walker”) has been retained to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the
City’s existing multi-space metered parking system.
In addition to evaluating the system to determine where existing meters may be removed or added, if necessary,
Walker will also provide a high-level overview of selected existing unmanaged/unpaid parking areas, with
recommendations on specific neighborhoods or areas that may need to have multi-space meters installed in the
future. These high-level recommendations will be informed by future known land use changes and developments
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 10
of note, as provided by the City, and/or development/redevelopment. Also, they will include suggested criteria
that will enable the City to identify where and how many multi-space meters could be installed in the future.
Walker has also been retained to evaluate existing paid parking rates and fees, including fines for violating existing
parking rules relating to paid on-street parking. Also, the hours of operation for the paid parking system will be
analyzed. Based on this evaluation and analysis, in conjunction with a review of parking rates, fees, fines, and
hours of operation for selected peer cities for benchmarking purposes, Walker will provide recommendations for
changes that could help to streamline further and optimize both the existing system as well as any expansions in
the system that may occur in the future.
Study Area
The overall study area for this study is defined by two rectangles that are non-contiguous with each other.
One area is a rectangle approximately bounded by 600 West to the west, 200 North to the north, University St. to
the east, and 1000 South to the south. This area contains all existing paid/metered parking areas in the City.
Neighborhoods entirely or partially falling within this area include Downtown, Central City, Fairpark, Capitol Hill,
East Central, Ball Park, Liberty-Wells, East Liberty Park, Greater Avenues, and Glendale.
The other area is a rectangle approximately bounded by 700 East to the west, 2000 South to the north, 1300 East
to the east, and the 80 Freeway to the south. This study area represents the core of the Sugar House
Neighborhood.
Figure 1 on the next page depicts the two study areas considered as part of this study, with paid and free parking
areas within the study areas shown.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 11
Figure 1. Study Area
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 12
The existing paid parking areas where existing conditions were evaluated in detail are shown in Figure 2 on the
next page. The maximum extent of the main contiguous paid area is 100 North to the north, 400 E to the east,
700 South to the south, and 500 West to the west. In addition, there is paid parking along South Temple St.
between 400 East and E Street, as well as along 1300 E. between East 500 and 600 South. These areas are not
contiguous with the main paid area or each other.
City records show a total of about 280 existing multi-space meters that are deployed and operational as of August
2022. Out of that total, 268 meters are within the main contiguous area, 11 are located in the 1300 E. non-
contiguous area, and 1 is located along S. Temple between 400 and 500 East. These 280 multi-space meters
serve 1,591 individually numbered paid parking spaces across the system. Of those, 63 spaces are located in the
1300 E. non-contiguous area, and 6 are located along S. Temple between 400 East and E Street.
Figure 2 below depicts the paid parking areas and shows existing multi-space meter locations within them.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 13
Figure 2. Existing Paid Area and Multi-Space Meter Locations
Figure 3 below shows the multi-space meter locations with land uses/zoning overlain. Only land uses for which
a block face with at least one multi-space meter is present are shown in the legend.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 14
Figure 3. Existing Land Uses/Zoning and Multi-Space Meter Locations
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 15
Existing Metered
Parking
03
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 16
Existing Metered Parking Key Takeaways
P HISTORICAL TRENDS
Number
of Meters
280
CURRENT USAGE (2021 – 2022)
852,998
Average Number of Transactions
per Meter (Including Pay-by-App)
3,015
Average Number of Meters per
Block Face (By Land Use)
1.80 - 2.74
Pay-by-App Share of Transactions
for Most Meters
41% - 60% Proportional Transaction Volume
by Meter and High-Activity Areas
Total Transactions
(Including Pay-by-App)
Pay-by-App Usage
8%12%18%24%30%38%45%
0%
20%
40%
60%
2015 -
2016
2016 -
2017
2017 -
2018
2018 -
2019
2019 -
2020
2020 -
2021
2021 -
2022
* Number of deployed and operational
meters as of August 2022
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 17
Existing Metered Parking
Historical Systemwide Trends
When Salt Lake City’s existing multi-space meter technology was first implemented, transactions via pay-by-app
constituted only a small fraction of total transactions. However, every year since then, the relative share of
transactions taking place via pay-by-app has increased relative to transactions at the multi-space meter.
Based on monthly transaction and revenue data furnished to Walker by the City dating back to 2015, Walker was
able to chart the total overall volume of transactions from year to year and determine the percent share of pay-
by-app versus multi-space meter transactions between 2015 and 2022. This data is shown in Figure 4 below.
Note that each time period shown is from July through the following June.
Figure 4. Pay-by-App vs. Multi-Space Meter Transactions by Year (July 2015 – June 2022)
In 2015, pay-by-app transactions represented 8% of the total number. By 2022, they represented nearly half of
total transactions. Note that overall transactions decreased starting in 2019 – 2020 due to the COVID-19
pandemic.
Overall, the average revenue per transaction has been steadily increasing. The annual average increased from
$2.21 per transaction in the June 2015 – 2016 period to $3.00 in 2021 – 2022, with a positive year-over-year
increase occurring yearly. It should be noted that the per-hour rate increased from $2.00 to $2.25 per hour in
July 2019.1
1 https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/05/08/salt-lake-city-mayor/
92%88%82%
76%
70%
62%55%
8%12%18%
24%
30%
38%
45%
1,299,735 1,296,808 1,290,156
1,194,614
811,740
590,428
852,998
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
2015 - 2016 2016 - 2017 2017 - 2018 2018 - 2019 2019 - 2020 2020 - 2021 2021 - 2022
To
t
a
l
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
At the Meter Pay-by-App
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 18
Figure 5 below shows total transactions by month, and percent share of multi-space meter versus pay-by-app
transactions, for the July 2021 – June 2022 period.
Figure 5. Pay-by-App vs. Multi-Space Meter Transactions by Month (July 2021 – June 2022)
By month, March had the greatest number of transactions while January had the fewest. The total number of
transactions for the period ranged from a little over 57,000 to 82,667.
Analysis of Multi-Space Meter Usage
Methodology
For purposes of analysis and comparison of multi-space meters and transactions by individual meter location, it
was necessary to examine individual transaction data for each multi-space meter location. Data containing all
individual transactions by meter was provided to Walker between July 2021 and June 2022. As a result, this is the
period of time for which meter usage analysis by location was conducted. In all, two different sets of data for all
multi-space meter transactions were furnished to Walker, described in detail below.
One set of data contained, by month, every transaction that took place physically at each individual multi-space
meter across the system within the time period for which data was available. In this set, both the individual space
number as well as the multi-space meter at which the transaction took place were identified, making it possible to
aggregate individual transactions by their associated multi-space meter. Walker then performed analysis using
geographical information systems (GIS) software that enabled it to associate transaction information at the multi-
space meter level with the spatial location of each meter.
The other data set contained all individual pay-by-app transactions across the system within the same period.
While data on the total number of transactions that physically took place at the multi-space meter identified both
59%59%58%56%56%55%53%52%
53%54%55%54%
41%41%42%44%44%45%
47%
48%
47%
46%45%46%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
2021 2022
To
t
a
l
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
At the Meter Pay-by-App
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 19
the individual space number as well as the meter at which the transaction took place, making it possible to
aggregate individual transactions by their associated meter, pay-by-app transactions only identified the individual
space number to which the transaction is linked, and not an associated multi-space meter. This is because pay-
by-app transactions bypass the multi-space meter entirely.
As a result, to compare pay-by-app transactions to multi-space meter transactions at the multi-space meter level,
and to spatially plot the data in GIS, Walker was required to perform some additional analysis to associate one
multi-space meter to every individual parking space. To do this, Walker looked at the total number of
transactions associated with all multi-space meters for each individual parking space within the set of data that
contained transactions that physically took place at the meter. The multi-space meter/space combination with
the greatest volume of transactions per individual space was then used to assign to that space a single multi-
space meter that most closely matched or was most strongly associated with the space. For example, if 99% of
total transactions for a given space were associated with one multi-space meter, and fewer than 1% were
associated with other multi-space meters, that space was assigned the first multi-space meter for all pay-by-app
transactions associated with that space.
In general, the closest multi-space meter match was likely to be the most convenient and/or closest multi-space
meter to a given individual parking space. Transactions associated with other multi-space meters may have been
due to, for example, people who started to walk to their destination and made it a block or two before
remembering to pay. For such transactions, Walker carried over the transaction to associate with the closest
match multi-space meter instead.
Total Transactions by Multi-Space Meter Location
There was an average of 3,015 transactions per multi-space meter overall (1,671 at the meter and 1,362 pay-by-
app for spaces associated with each meter). There was a median of 2,221 transactions per multi-space meter
overall (1,277 at the meter and 964 pay-by-app for spaces associated with each meter).
Figure 6 shows the total transactions per multi-space meter proportionately across the system, with the size of
the circles corresponding to the number of transactions per station.
Note that data was not available for ten multi-space meters that were shown to exist according to City data
records provided. For this analysis, two additional meters were excluded as the total number of transactions fell
under 20. Some or all of these meters may have been newly installed and/or out of service during the time
period. Therefore, out of 290 total meters shown in City records, 280 had a number of transactions associated
with them greater than 0 and 278 had more than 20 transactions.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 20
Figure 6. Proportional Transaction Volume by Multi-Space Meter (July 2021 – June 2022)
The multi-space meters with the highest activity, in terms of the total number of transactions, were found along
E. 300 S. between 200 W. and 300 E., and along W. 100 S. between West Temple St. and State St. The two blocks
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 21
bounded by 300 S. to the north, 400 S. to the south, West Temple to the west, and State St. to the east saw the
highest volume of multi-space meter activity.
Other areas with higher usage than others included W. 200 S. between 300 and 400 W., the area around the E.
200 S. and S 200 E. intersection, 100 S. west of 400 W., the area around the South Temple and West Temple
intersection, S. State St. south of 600 S., and the 1300 E. non -contiguous paid area.
Figure 7 shows the percentage distribution of meters by total number of transactions.
Figure 7. Percent Distribution of Multi-Space Meters by Transaction Volume (July 2021 – June 2022)
About 24% of multi-space meters reported a total number of transactions (at the meter and pay-by-app) that fell
below 1,000. Most multi-space meters reported a volume of between 1,000 and 5,000 total transactions. The
remainder reported a volume greater than 5,000, with only 3 multi-space meters reporting a number greater
than 10,000.
Figure 8 on the next page shows the total transactions per multi-space meter proportionately across the system
with land uses overlain. Also, high-activity areas within the CBD have been highlighted with a box.
1%2%
21%
54%
21%
1%
Under 10
Between 10 and 100
Between 101 and 1,000
Between 1,000 and 5,000
Between 5,000 and 10,000
Over 10,000
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 22
Figure 8. Transaction Volume by Station with Land Uses/Zoning
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 23
By Block Face and Land Use
Figure 9 below shows the average number of multi-space meters per block face for all land uses/zones that have
paid parking on at least one adjacent block face. Note that block faces with at least one multi-space meter that
are divided between two or more zones were excluded from the calculations; only full block faces adjacent to one
single zone were included.
Figure 9. Average Number of Meters per Block Face by Zone
Selected Zone with Existing Metered Parking Average Number of Meters per Full Block Face Average (Rounded)
Gateway Mixed Use 1.80 2
Secondary CBD 2.00 2
Residential Mixed Use 2.22 2
High-Density Residential 2.00 2
Urban Institutional 2.00 2
CBD 2.18 2
CBD (High Activity Areas) 2.74 3
Public Lands 2.50 3
Library 2.67 3
Downtown Support District 2.50 3
Community Business 2.67 3
Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 2.00 2
Overall, the average number of multi-space meters per complete block face, for block faces not divided between
two or more zones, ranged from 1.80 in the Gateway Mixed Use District to 2.74 for high-activity areas within the
CBD. The CBD itself overall had an average of about 2.18. Outside the CBD high-activity area, Community
Business and Library zones had the highest at an average of 2.67 per complete block face.
If generalizing the figures presented above to represent more general land use categories and density, it was first
necessary to establish the specific selected land use, as identified by existing zoning within the paid area, that
best corresponds to the given general land use category/density combinations. Figure 10 below shows existing
specific land uses and zones used to correspond with mid-density and high-density residential areas, non-
residential areas, and mixed-use areas respectively.
Figure 10. Average Number of Meters per Block Face by General Land Use Category
Density General Land Use Category Corresponding Selected Zone
Average Number
of Meters per Full
Block Face
Mid-Density
Residential Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 2.00
Non-Residential Secondary CBD 2.00
Mixed-Use Gateway Mixed Use 1.80
High-Density
Residential Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 2.00
Non-Residential CBD 2.18
Mixed-Use Downtown Support District 2.50
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 24
Pay-by-App vs. Multi-Space Meter Transactions
Figure 11 shows the total transactions per multi-space meter and the share of those transactions for spaces
associated with each meter that was conducted via pay-by-app instead of at the multi-space meter.
Figure 11. Total Transactions & Pay-by-App Percentage by Meter (July 2021 – June 2022)
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 25
While there is no clear correlation between certain areas/land uses and pay-by-app usage as a function of
percentage share, a few “hot spots” and “cold spots” are apparent. 200 W. between 100 and 200 S., the area
bounded by 200 S. to the north, 300 E. to the east, 400 S. to the south, and State St. to the west, South Temple
between 200 E. and 300 E., and 300 E. south of South Temple all featured multi-space meters recording over 60%
pay-by-app usage.
Relatively speaking, areas of low pay-by-app usage included most multi-space meters north of 100 S. west of 200
E. and between 400 S. and 500 S.
Figure 12 below shows the total distribution of multi-space meters by the percent share of transactions
conducted via pay-by-app.
Figure 12. Multi-Space Meters by Pay-by-App Percent Share (July 2021 - June 2022)
Overall, for most multi-space meters, the division between transactions at the meter versus through pay-by-app is
relatively even, with the share of pay-by-app transactions ranging from 41% to 60% for 67% of all multi-space
meters. Only 6% of all multi-space meters have a pay-by-app percentage falling under 20% or exceeding 60%.
3%
27%
67%
3%
Under 20%
Between 21% and 40%
Between 41% and 60%
Over 60%
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 26
Metered Parking
Evaluation
04
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 27
Metered Parking Evaluation Key
Takeaways
250 Feet Max
Distance
METER
REQUIREMENTS*
CRITERIA FOR KEEPING METERS
Maximum Share
of Pay-by-App
Transactions
Minimum
Number
of
Transactions
1,300
60%
MA
I
N
ST
A
T
E
2 per
Block
Face
Candidates for Potential Removal
27
Total
Candidate
Locations for
Removal
* Minimum requirements. May differ in some land use contexts.
Cost Estimate Range
for Replacement for…
280 Meters
$1.4M –
$2.2M
$1.3M –
$2.1M
263 Meters
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 28
Evaluation of Metered Parking
Evaluation Criteria
To evaluate the existing paid parking area, Walker first needed to establish the criteria by which meters are
evaluated. These evaluation criteria can also be used when determining the meter density , or number of meters
per block face, in locations the City may deem appropriate for establishing future paid parking areas that
currently do not have it.
Walker, with the input and agreement of Salt Lake City staff, has established the following criteria for evaluating
where meters should potentially be added or removed within existing paid parking areas/block faces, as well as
for assessing whether an existing unpaid area or block face may be a candidate for new metered parking.
The criteria are as follows: minimum number of meters, distance between meters, number of total transactions,
and percent share of transactions that are pay-by-app. The first two criteria are defined as requirements, which
should be satisfied regardless of any other factors, while the third and fourth criteria are defined as minimum
thresholds.
For the threshold-defined criteria, the total number of transactions should be considered the primary criterion,
instead of or equally in conjunction with share of Passport transactions, to consider a meter as a suitable
candidate for removal.
Meters with high usage will still have an absolute high number/volume of transactions at the meter, even if the
relative share of such transactions compared to Passport is greater than 50% or 60%. Also, Passport/smartphone
app usage is a metric that is more likely to vary depending on the season and other factors. Finally, it is possible
that such usage of the app versus the multi-space meter may begin to plateau in the future, with at-meter
transactions always representing a certain minimum percentage of all transactions despite smartphone and app
saturation in the marketplace.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 29
Removing Meters in Existing Paid Areas
Figure 14 below shows the evaluation criteria for removing meters in existing paid areas/along existing paid block
faces.
Figure 13. Evaluation Matrix for Removing Meters in Existing Paid Areas
Criteria Category Order of
Priority Criteria Description Other Considerations & Notes
Minimum Number
of Meters 1
By removing meter(s), the resulting number of meters
does not fall below an established minimum for the
number of meters that is required per block face.
Distance between
Meters 2
By removing one or more meters, the distance from
any parking space along a block face to any meter
does not exceed the maximum allowed.
Maximum distances allowed may differ
for certain land uses, such as commercial
land uses offering human services.
Number of Total
Transactions 3 The number of transactions is lower than a particular
established critical threshold.
Percent Share Pay-
by-App 4
The percentage of pay-by-app transactions for parking
spaces associated with a multi-space meter exceeds a
certain established critical threshold.
Adding Meters in Existing Paid Areas
Figure 13 below shows the evaluation criteria for adding meters in existing paid areas/along existing paid block
faces.
Figure 14. Evaluation Matrix for Adding Meters in Existing Paid Areas
Criteria Category Order of
Priority Criteria Description Other Considerations & Notes
Minimum Number
of Meters 1
Per block face where paid parking exists, an
established minimum for the number of meters that is
required per block face is not met.
Distance between
Meters 2
Per block face, the distance between a parking space
and a multi-space meter exceeds an allowed
maximum.
Maximum distances allowed may differ for
certain land uses, such as commercial land
uses offering human services.
Number of Total
Transactions 3
The number of transactions is higher than a particular
established critical threshold, and/or wait times during
peak demand times at a meter are causing undue
inconvenience to meter users.
Percent Share Pay-
by-App 4
The percentage of pay-by-app transactions for parking
spaces associated with a multi-space meter falls below
a certain established critical threshold.
Installing Meters in Existing Unpaid Areas
Figure 15 below shows the evaluation criteria for installing new meters in existing unpaid areas/along unpaid
block faces.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 30
Figure 15. Evaluation Matrix for Installing Meters in Existing Unpaid Areas
Criteria Category Order of
Priority Criteria Description Other Considerations & Notes
Land Use Changes N/A
There is a change in land use from undeveloped,
industrial, or low-density residential land uses to
any combination of commercial, office,
mid/high-density residential, or retail.
Assuming that specific meter requirements,
such as the minimum number of meters per
block face and maximum distance allowed
between meters, are met
Spillover Parking N/A
Spillover parking is occurring from high parking
demand land uses/activity centers into adjacent
lower-density areas, such as residential
neighborhoods.
Alternative strategies to manage spillover
parking could also be considered, such as a
residential parking permit program.
Requirements & Thresholds
Requirements
Figure 16 below summarizes the established requirements for evaluating all meters in both the existing paid
parking system as well as for determining baseline requirements for new meters in potential future paid parking
areas.
Figure 16. Minimum Requirements for Meters
Criteria Category Requirements
Minimum Number of Meters Minimum of 2 meters per block face
Distance between Meters Maximum of 250 feet between the meter and parking space (150 feet for human services)
Minimum Number of Meters
Walker has determined that there should be a minimum of two meters per block face, regardless of the length of
a paid parking block face or any other factors. Because this requirement establishes that meters must be located
on the same block face, parking meters that may fall within the maximum distance of a parking space but that are
located on an adjacent block face, or directly across the street, cannot count towards meeting this required
minimum requirement.
This minimum of two meters per block face was established with input from Salt Lake City staff, who determined
that each paid block face should have at least two meters to provide for redundancy in case one of the meters is
out of service or not working correctly. Under such conditions, people who choose to pay at the meter may still
do so without having to cross a street.
Distance Between Meters
If a block face falls within the paid area and has paid parking along the block face, there should typically always be
a minimum of at least one multi-space meter per 250 feet of parking frontage within the paid area. For distances
beyond 250 feet, the average parker may find that the path of travel to the nearest meter is inconvenient. Even
in a scenario where use of pay by app may be encouraged, or where the parker does not have to return to his/her
vehicle to place a paid parking receipt on their dashboard, it is recommended that parkers should not have to
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 31
walk more than one minute to reach a parking meter. At a conservatively estimated walking speed of 3 miles per
hour, it would take just under one minute to access a meter located about 250 feet away.
As the standard block face length for a typical Salt Lake City block (within the CBD) is about 660 feet, this means
that, in general, there would need to be at least two multi-space meter per block face to satisfy this distance
requirement, regardless of other factors. In such cases, the meters should optimally be positioned at even
intervals, about 1/4 and 3/4ths up the length of a full-sized block face (660 feet). For longer block faces, more
than two may be required. At such intervals, there would be a meter at 165 feet and 495 feet when measured
from a point of origin at the end of one block face, assuming that there are paid parking spaces located along the
entire block face. This would make each meter about 165 feet away from the farthest parking space.
Alternatively, for meters placed 1/3 and 2/3rds up the length of the full-sized block face, there would be a meter
at 220 and 440 feet when measured from a point of origin at the end of one block face. This would make each
meter a maximum of 220 feet away from the farthest parking space, assuming that there are paid parking spaces
located along the entire block face.
For block faces with paid parking that services specific land uses, such as human services, that may command a
need for closer parking multi-space meters than usual, the maximum distance from a meter to a parking space
should be about 150 feet. This shorter distance can make it easier for parkers with mobility issues to access
meters and/or ensure that meters are available for populations that may not have pay -by-app technology
available to them.
For any accessible on-street parking spaces within the paid area, Walker recommends that a meter be located as
close to the accessible spaces as possible.
Thresholds for Keeping Meters
Figure 17 below summarizes the established thresholds for keeping existing meters.
Figure 17. Thresholds for Keeping Existing Meters
Criteria Category Thresholds for Keeping Meters
Number of Total Transactions Minimum of 1,300 transactions per year (at meter + pay-by-app)
Percent Share Pay-by-App The percent share of transactions at the meter is at least 40% (60% pay-by-app)
Minimum Number of Transactions
Meter usage per meter by block face should be such that the revenue and number of transactions make the
individual meter profitable, or at least break-even in terms of cost, while not so high as to cause undue burden on
persons attempting to use the meter to pay for parking.
From a financially feasible perspective, a multi-space meter should support a minimum of approximately 1,300
transactions annually. This derives from an assumed 3-year return on the initial capital investment in a multi-
space meter of approximately $8,000 and an average ongoing operations and maintenance cost of $1,000
annually per multi-space meter. With 260 paid parking days enforced per year, over the 3-year period, each multi-
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 32
space meter should generate approximately $14 per day. With an average transaction value paid at the multi-
space meter of $2.79, this represents approximately 5 transactions per day or 1,300 per year.
Figure 18 summarizes the equation described above that results in the break-even number of transactions per
multi-space meter per year, as determined by Walker.
Figure 18. Summarized Equation for Determining Break-Even Number of Transactions per Year
Multi-space meters with fewer than 1,300 associated transactions per year are less likely to generate the
minimum revenues necessary to support their initial installation cost and/or ongoing operations and
maintenance. This minimum threshold is used as the base for identifying multi-space meters for potential
removal.
Percent Share Pay-by-App
In terms of the percentage of transactions that are pay-by-app versus at the meter, Walker has established the
critical threshold at 60% pay-by-app usage. Multi-space meters for which the percentage of pay-by-app
transactions is under 60% are meters for which physically paying at the meter is still a popular payment choice.
Thresholds for Adding Meters
Figure 19 below summarizes the established thresholds for keeping existing meters.
Figure 19. Thresholds for Adding Meters to Block Faces with Existing Meters
Criteria Category Thresholds for Adding New Meter
Number of Total Transactions At least one meter on a block face sees frequent “congestion,” defined as parkers who need to
queue up at the meter in order to use the meter to pay for a parking space.
Meters should be added to a block face or area if at least one meter along the block face has a high enough
average number of transactions at the meter across the paid parking period per day where paid parking is in
effect to where the meter may see “congestion.” In this context, congestion is defined as parkers needing to
queue up in order to use the meter to pay for a parking space.
=
( ) $8k
+
$1k
Year
(260 Days) x (3 Years) ) =
5
Transactions
1 Day ( 1,300
Transactions
1 Year
(260 Days)
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 33
Note that, for this context, only the number of transactions at the meter is relevant, as transactions associated
with a meter that take play via pay-by-app do not result in physical “congestion” at the meter.
In this study, there were a total of 6,721 at-the-meter transactions at the multi-space meter with the highest
recorded number of at-the-meter transactions (Meter #34199). When divided by 260 paid parking days and 12
hours per day where paid parking is in effect, this resulted in an average of 2.15 at-the-meter transactions per
hour. While this average does not account for variance per hour in meter usage, the average time it takes to
conduct an at-the-meter transaction is likely under 28 minutes.
At 10,000 at-the-meter transactions per year, the average number of transactions per hour would be about 3.20,
or about one every 19 minutes. It is likely that a single meter would not have frequent “congestion” unless the
meter had an average of one transaction every 15 or fewer minutes. Currently, no meter in the existing system
sees such a high level of transactions per hour, on average.
Existing Meters with Thresholds Applied
Figure 20 below shows all multi-space meters in the existing system with the total transaction volume and
percent pay-by-app use thresholds applied that were established above.
Note that meters are only shown where data for total number of transactions and pay-by-app usage was
available. Squares in red indicate that the meter fails the established threshold for the total number of
transactions needed for the meter to break even in terms of revenue. In the case of pay-by-app usage, the
threshold is expressed in terms of multi-space meter usage, with circles in red representing meter usage falling
under 60%.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 34
Figure 20. Total Transactions and Pay-by-App Usage Over/Under Established Thresholds
Out of this set of active multi-space meters shown, 85 out of 280 did not meet the 1,300-transaction threshold.
Nine meters met the pay-by-app usage threshold (percent of transactions through the pay-by-phone app was at
or above 60%). Two meters both did not meet the transaction threshold and met the pay-by-app threshold.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 35
By Block Face & Land Use
Figure 21 below shows the average number of multi-space meters meeting the 1,300-transaction threshold per
block face for all land uses/zones that have paid parking on at least one adjacent block face. When compared
with the total number of meters per block face for each given specific land use/zone, the difference between
figures can help to highlight selected specific land uses where there may be too many meters or about the correct
number, on average, to achieve financial feasibility. Note that block faces with at least one multi-space meter
that are divided between two or more zones were excluded from the calculations; only full block faces adjacent to
one single zone were included.
Figure 21. Average Number of Meters per Block Face that Meet Transaction Threshold by Zone
Selected Zone with Existing Metered Parking Average Number of Meters per Full
Block Face that Meet Threshold
Average
(Rounded)
Gateway Mixed Use 1.80 2
Secondary CBD 1.22 1
Residential Mixed Use 0.44 0
High-Density Residential 1.00 1
Urban Institutional 0.80 1
CBD 1.69 2
CBD (High Activity Areas) 2.74 3
Public Lands 1.50 2
Library 1.50 2
Downtown Support District 2.00 2
Community Business 2.00 2
Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 1.00 1
Overall, the average number of multi-space meters with an annual transaction total equal to or exceeding 1,300
per complete block face, for block faces not divided between two or more zones, ranged from 0.44 in the
Residential Mixed-Use District to 2.74 for high-activity areas within the CBD. The CBD itself had an average of
1.69 multi-space meters per full block face with at least 1,300 transactions. Outside the CBD, Gateway Mixed Use
had the highest average at 1.80 meters per block face with at least 1,300 transactions.
Figure 22 below shows the average number of multi-space meters per block face that met the transaction
threshold of 1,300 transactions per year according to more generalized land uses and densities discussed in the
previous section according to the selected corresponding specific land use/zone that best fits the more general
category.
Figure 22. Average Number of Meters per Block Face that Meet Transaction Threshold by Land Use Category
Density General Land Use Category Corresponding Selected Zone Average Number of Meters per Full
Block Face that Meet Threshold
Mid-Density
Residential Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 1.00
Non-Residential Secondary CBD 1.22
Mixed-Use Gateway Mixed Use 1.80
High-Density
Residential Moderate/High-Density MF Residential 1.00
Non-Residential CBD 1.69
Mixed-Use Downtown Support District 2.00
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 36
Recommendations
Adding Meters
Currently, no meter in the existing system likely sees a high-enough level of transactions per hour, on average, to
warrant the need for an additional meter along a block face with existing meters. Therefore, Walker does not
currently recommend adding more meters along any block faces within the existing paid parking zone.
Walker does recommend that the City consider feedback from citizens, business owners, and paid parking users
along a block face in order to evaluate the potential need for additional meters along that block face on a case-by-
case basis. If feedback is consistently received that identifies long wait times or queues at a particular meter, the
block face upon which the meter is located should be evaluated for the addition of a meter.
Removing Existing Meters
Given the above established requirements and threshold of 1,300 transactions per year, Walker has evaluated the
existing paid parking system by block face in order to identify potential block face candidates for removal of a
meter, as shown in Figure 23 below.
Note that meter candidates identified for potential removal may not be meters that recorded fewer than 1,300
transactions. For instance, consider an existing block face with three meters that are located about a quarter,
half, and three-fourths up a block face where one of the three meters recorded fewer than 1,300 transactions.
If the meter not meeting the threshold is the one located either ¼ or ¾ the way up the block face, Walker would
suggest that the meter ½ way up the block face would be the most suitable candidate for removal, even if it
recorded more than 1,300 transactions. This is because the removal of that meter would result in more even
spacing between meters and a shorter distance from any meter to the farthest parking space on the block face,
and therefore better satisfy all the criteria established previously.
Also note that the figure below does not account for any on-street accessible parking within the paid system, if
any exists.
Finally, note that meters for which no transactions were recorded were not included in this evaluation.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 37
Figure 23. Multi-Space Meter Candidates for Removal in Existing Paid System
In all, Walker has identified 27 out of 280 currently deployed and operational multi-space meters that may be
candidates for removal, excluding meters with no recorded transactions that may not have been operational and
deployed during the time period for which data was analyzed in this study. Note that some of the meters may be
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 38
located off-street and/or in a mid-block alley. In all cases, these represent associated block faces with three or
more existing meters where at least one meter does not meet the 1,300 -meter transaction threshold. Candidates
were selected that appeared to leave the most even spacing between meters on a block face, with meters
satisfying the 250-foot maximum distance requirement.
Walker recommends that block faces with meters identified as candidates for removal be evaluated further
before being considered for removal. Criteria for further evaluation may include whether the block face is to see
notable densification or redevelopment in the future that may increase parking use on that block face, or whether
the meter is located near a particular institutional use where more meters may be warranted. Also, if accessible
parking spaces are located near a meter identified as a candidate for removal, Walker would recommend that the
meter remain.
A detailed list of the meter locations identified for potential removal is located in the Appendix.
Replacement Cost and Quantity Estimates
Figure 24 below shows the estimated cost range for replacement of the existing meter inventory (deployed and
operational meters). Figures are shown for both complete replacement of the entire existing deployed and
operational inventory as well as replacement minus the meter locations identified as candidates for removal in
the previous section.
Figure 24. Estimated Cost Range for Replacing Existing Meters
Cost Range of Meter in 2022
Projected Cost of Replacement
Estimated Initial Cost
Difference Existing Inventory Existing Inventory Minus
Candidates for Removal
For 280 Meters For 263 Meters
$5,000 $1,400,000 $1,315,000 $85,000
$8,000 $2,240,000 $2,104,000 $136,000
The estimated cost for replacing all existing 280 deployed and operational meters ranges from about $1.4 million
to $2.2 million. However, if replacement were to occur without replacing all 27 meters locations identified as
candidates for removal, the cost would range from about $1.3 million to $2.1 million. As a result, total initial, up-
front cost savings would range from $85k to $136k.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 39
Potential Expansion
of Parking Meters
05
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 40
Potential Expansion of Parking Meters
Key Takeaways
SHORT-
TO
MID-
TERM
MID-
TO
LONG-
TERM
Sugar House
Downtown
Downtown
Number of Meters
Needed to Cover
Short/Mid-Term Area
at 2 per Block Face
488
Number of Meters
Needed to Cover
Mid/Long-Term Area
at 2 per Block Face
310
Cost Estimate Range
for Installation of New
Meters at 2 per Block
Face
$2.4M – $3.9M
Cost Estimate Range
for Installation of New
Meters at 2 per Block
Face
$1.6M – $2.5M
Number of Meters Needed
to Cover Mid/Long-Term
Area at 2 per Block Face
(1 per Block Face)
143
Cost Estimate Range for
Installation of New Meters
at 1 per Block Face
$715k –
$1.1M
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 41
Potential Expansion of Parking Meters
As Salt Lake City continues to grow, densify, and diversify, the City may wish to expand the location(s) where
parking meters are installed. In this section, Walker provides a high-level framework for formulating a roadmap
for future expansions based on an evaluation and consolidation of future known developments in the short and
mid-term, as well as future land uses in the long term, as informed by various applicable sub-area and
neighborhood plans.
Short to Mid Term
The City furnished to Walker a map, current as of July 2022, of known future downtown developments that are
under construction, soon to be under construction, or that planned/proposed. Developments range from
residential to commercial/retail and are mid-density to high-density in nature. Figure 25 below shows the
locations of these various developments. By Walker’s count, there are about 68 developments shown.
Figure 25. Future Downtown Developments (July 2022)
Source: City of Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 42
Figure 26 below shows the existing paid parking areas and study areas for this project along with a contiguous
area in yellow that outlines and encompasses the future downtown developments shown above. Note that the
area has been drawn such that whole blocks are included if at least one new development is contained within.
Figure 26. Short-Term and Mid-Term Downtown Growth Area and Existing Paid Parking Area
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 43
In all, an area that encompasses all known new development downtown and adjacent to downtown would
represent about a 2.4% increase in the number of block faces covered compared to the existing paid parking area
shown above. There are about 102 block faces currently that are within the paid area while the growth area
represents an area of about 244 block faces as drawn. Also, for each block or partial block within the area, only
the block faces interior to the respective block were counted. Block faces on the opposite side of the street, or
exterior to the block face, along the periphery of the area were not counted.
Cost and Quantity Estimates
If the City were to extend the paid parking area to this whole area, it would therefore represent about a 2.4x
increase in the size of the paid parking area, not including Sugar House. If assuming about 2 meters per block
face, regardless of land use, this would equal to an increase in the total number of multi-space meters in the
system of about 488 meters, give or take. If assuming about 3 meters per block face, it would result in an
increase of about 732 meters, give or take.
As of 2022, the average cost of a multi-space parking meter, including installation and other up-front costs such
as hardware, software, and configuration, ranges from about $5,000 to about $8,000, depending on v endor and
other factors. These costs do not include ongoing capital costs such as maintenance and software/platform
subscriptions. Figure 27 below provides high-level cost range estimates for an expansion of the paid area into the
areas shown in yellow in Figure 26.
Estimates are shown assuming 2 meters per block face, as this is both the minimum requirement outlined in the
analysis on existing metered parking as well as the average number of recommended meters per Downtown-
length block face for all general land uses except high-activity, high-density commercial. It should be noted that
the number of meters recommended for new high-density, high-activity commercial areas would be 3 meters per
block face, consistent with the average number of meters that met transaction criteria for such areas. As a result,
Walker has provided estimated costs assuming both 2 and 3 meters per block face for illustrative purposes.
Figure 27. Cost Estimates for Expansion of Paid Area into Short- and Mid-Term Downtown Growth Areas
Cost Range per Meter in 2022 Projected Cost for New Meters (Downtown) Estimated Cost
Difference At 2 per Block Face At 3 per Block Face
$5,000 $2,440,000 $3,660,000 $1,220,000
$8,000 $3,904,000 $5,856,000 $1,952,000
In all, a high-level cost estimate for increasing the size by 2.4x of the current metered parking area, as indicated in
Figure 26, would range from about $2.4 million to $3.9 million, assuming 2 meters per block face, and would
range from about $3.7 million to $5.9 million, assuming 3 meters per block face.
Mid to Long Term
Future land uses as planned and displayed in the various neighborhood and sub-area plans that have been
officially adopted for all the neighborhood and community areas that are covered by the study areas are also
included within the study area.
These applicable sub-area, neighborhood, or community plans are the following:
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 44
• The Avenues Master Plan
• Capitol Hill Master Plan
• Central Community Master Plan
• Sugar House Master Plan
• Gateway District Land Development and
Master Plan
In order to provide a framework for understanding the number of parking meters and density that may be
required of the future land uses, Walker has evaluated the applicable future land use plans and maps and created
a composite of all future land uses across the study areas. This composite is shown in Figure 56 in the Appendix.
After compiling the map shown in Figure 56, Walker then dissolved the various land uses, labels, zone/use
nomenclatures, and legend/map colors shown in each plan and map into the same common general land use
category/density combinations that were used in the Existing Metered Parking section of this report (Figures 10
and 21) in order to make comparison of future land uses across plans possible. Note that only mid-density and
high-density commercial, residential, and mixed-use specific categories were considered.
A detailed table that displays all specific land use categories and colors used in each of the land use maps shown
in the composite above, and the general land use/density category(ies) to which they were associated/matched
by Walker, is provided in the Appendix.
A map of all future land uses with generalized land use/density categories is shown in Figure 28 on the next page.
For purposes of this map, Walker included mid- and high-density land uses that straddled the study area
boundaries. For Sugar House, Walker included and mapped generalized land uses falling within a quarter-mile
buffer of the study area boundary.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 45
Figure 28. Future Land Uses Generalized and Consolidated
Figure 29 below shows the number of meters that should be considered per full block face for each generalized
land use/density combination shown above.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 46
Figure 29. Number of Meters by Land Use Density and General Land Use
Density General Land Use Category
Generalized
Land Use
Color
Average Number of Meters
per Full Block Face Across
Area that Meet Threshold
Minimum Number of
Meters per Block Face
Mid-Density
Residential 1.00 2
Non-Residential 1.22 2
Mixed-Use 1.80 2
High-Density
Residential 1.00 2
Non-Residential 1.69 2
Non-Residential (High Activity Area) 2.74 3
Mixed-Use 2.00 2
The average number of meters that meet the 1,300-transaction minimum threshold, as reiterated above, ranged
from about 1 to 2 per block face (2.74 average for high-activity, high-density commercial areas). However, since
the City has specified that a minimum of two meters per full block face should always be installed regardless of
usage or other factors, this means that the number of meters per downtown block face for all general uses and
densities should be 2 for all land uses with an average of 2.00 or below. For high-activity, high-density
commercial areas, 3 meters per block face are recommended as the average number of meters meeting the
transaction threshold is above 2.00 (2.74).
It should be noted that for certain institutional and human resource land uses, a minimum of 3 or 4 meters per
block face should be installed. Also, as shown in the table, for high-activity areas within the high-density
commercial area, the average number of meters per block face where the threshold is met exceeds two. As a
result, for such areas, 3 meters per block face should be considered.
Figure 30 on the next page shows the existing paid area combined with the short- and mid-term growth area in
yellow, as shown in Figure 25 above, along with an additional area that outlines additional mid- and high-density
residential, mixed use, and commercial growth areas as determined from the consolidated future land uses
shown in Figure 28. These additional areas are shown in orange. In the case of Sugar House, such future land
uses that fall within a quarter-mile buffer of the study area were included.
Note that future mid- and high-density land uses contained within the study areas for this project do not
necessarily account for whether or not the given density and land use falls within an urban or a suburban/car-
orientated context. For instance, the medium-density residential located immediately east of the Forest Dale Golf
Course, in Sugar House, is an existing suburban-style apartment complex that lacks internal on-street parking and
may not be a good candidate for metered parking.
As a result, the mid- and long-term growth areas in orange are drawn to encompass only mid- and high-density
residential, mixed-use, and commercial future land areas that exist currently with an urban context/typology
within the study area, as areas that are not within such a context/typology may not be well suited for paid parking
even in the long term. These are the areas within which Walker has considered for purposes of estimating the
number of meters that would be needed to serve the areas.
Also, Walker drew the mid- to long-term areas so as to encompass blocks and/or block faces that completely or
nearly completely fall under a future mid- or high-density residential, mixed use, or commercial land use. As a
result, the growth area excludes some of the mid-density residential future land uses in the eastern third of the
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 47
downtown study area rectangle as these future land uses are interspersed with low-density housing and do not
encompass most or all of a block
Figure 30. Mid-Term & Long-Term Growth Areas
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 48
Cost and Quantity Estimates
Walker has provided below a high-level estimate for the number of meters that might be installed in the mid- and
high-density residential, mixed-use, and commercial areas in the Sugar House and Downtown study area in the
mid- to long-term, as informed by the consolidated future land uses. Only the mid- and high-density residential,
mixed use, and commercial future land uses included within the orange areas shown in the previous figure have
been considered for purposes of estimating the number of meters that would be needed to serve block faces
within the respective areas.
Downtown Growth Area
Figure 31 shows the estimated approximate number of block faces or visually combined partial block faces, called
“block face equivalents,” within the main orange area (downtown) by general land use classification.
Note that these estimates exclude existing block faces where there is no parking. Also, they only account for
existing block faces along existing streets. Third, frontage of blocks along freeways, viaducts, and other such
corridors were excluded. Finally, these estimates do NOT account or consider alleys or some mid-block streets
that may occur across the orange area, particularly at the periphery in The Avenues and at the south.
Estimates are shown assuming 2 meters per block face, as this is both the minimum requirement outlined in the
analysis on existing metered parking as well as the average number of recommended meters per Downtown-
length block face for all general land uses except high-activity, high-density commercial. It should be noted that
the number of meters recommended for new high-density, high-activity commercial areas would be 3 meters per
block face, consistent with the average number of meters that met transaction criteria for such areas. As a result,
Walker has provided estimated costs assuming both 2 and 3 meters per block face for illustrative purposes.
Figure 31. Block Face Quantity Estimates in Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Downtown)
Density General Land Use
Category
Generalized
Land Use Color
Approximate Number of Block Faces or Block
Face Equivalents*
Number of Meters per
Downtown Block Face
2 3
Mid-
Density
Residential 22 44 66
Non-Residential 38 76 114
Mixed-Use 33 66 99
High-
Density
Residential 6 12 18
Non-Residential 18 36 54
Mixed-Use 38 76 114
Total 155 310 465
* Downtown block face length or equivalent (660 feet)
Figure 32 below gives a high-level estimated cost range for the number of meters that would be required to serve
block faces within the defined Downtown growth area at 2 meters per block face and 3 meters per block face.
Figure 32. Cost Estimates for Metered Parking Expansion into Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Downtown)
Cost Range per Meter in 2022 Projected Cost for New Meters (Downtown) Estimated Cost
Difference At 2 per Block Face At 3 per Block Face
$5,000 $1,550,000 $2,325,000 $775,000
$8,000 $2,480,000 $3,720,000 $1,240,000
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 49
Walker estimates that there are approximately 155 block faces or block face equivalents within the Downtown
mid- to long-term area. At 2 meters per block face, the cost range would be approximately $1.6 million to $2.5
million. At 3 meters per block face, the cost range would be approximately $2.3 million to $3.7 million.
Sugar House Growth Area
Figure 33 shows the estimated approximate number of block faces or visually combined partial block faces, called
“block face equivalents,” within the smaller orange area to the south (Sugar House), as defined in Figure 30
above, by general land use classification.
Note that these estimates exclude existing block faces where there is no parking. Also, for some irregular and/or
curved block faces, Walker visually estimated the equivalent or approximate number of qualifying block faces
within the defined area. Third, they only account for existing block faces along existing streets. Finally, frontages
of blocks along the 80 Freeway were excluded.
Estimates are shown assuming both 1 meter per block face and 2 meters per block face. While 2 meters per
block face was one requirement outlined in the analysis on existing metered parking, that requirement was
determined partly based on the fact that the standard block face length in Salt Lake City is about 660 feet.
Standard Sugar House block faces, at 360 feet, are a little more than half that length. Therefore, only one meter
per block may be sufficient to serve some or most typical block faces in Sugar House.
Figure 33. Block Face Quantity Estimates in Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Sugar House)
Density General Land Use
Category
Generalized
Land Use Color
Approximate Number of Block
Faces or Block Face Equivalents*
Number of Meters per Sugar House Block
Face
1 2
Mid-
Density
Residential 26 26 52
Non-Residential 5 5 10
Mixed-Use 74 74 148
High-
Density
Residential 2 2 4
Non-Residential 0 0 0
Mixed-Use 36 36 72
Total 143 143 286
* Sugar House block face length (360 feet)
Figure 34 gives a high-level estimated cost range for the number of meters that would be required to serve block
faces within the defined Sugar House growth area at both 1 meter and 2 meters per block face.
Figure 34. Cost Estimates for Metered Parking Expansion into Mid- and Long-Term Growth Area (Sugar House)
Cost Range per Meter in 2022 Projected Cost for New Meters (Sugar House) Estimated Cost
Difference At 1 per Block Face At 2 per Block Face
$5,000 $715,000 $1,430,000 $715,000
$8,000 $1,144,000 $2,288,000 $1,144,000
Walker estimates that there are approximately 143 block faces or block face equivalents within the Sugar House
mid- to long-term area. At 1 meter per block face, the cost range would be approximately $700k to $1.1 million.
At 2 meters per block face, the cost range would be approximately $1.4 million to $2.3 million.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 50
Metered Parking
Policies, Rates, & Fees
06
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 51
Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees
Key Takeaways
HOURS OF
ENFORCEMENT
RATES
TIME LIMITS
DAYS OF
THE WEEK
ZONE
STRUCTURE
CITATION
FINES
SUGGESTED
ACTIONS
SLC
SELECTED
EXISTING
$
$
$2.25 per hour (flat
rate for entire system).
Tiered rate system. $2.50 per hour
(for first two hours), $5 per hour
(3rd hour), $10 per hour (4th hour).
2 hours per day (across
entire system).
4 hours per day. Consider lower
time limit in some very high
demand spaces.
8 AM – 8 PM, Mon –
Sat (across entire
system).
Extend to 10 PM in existing paid
area. Consider later end time for
areas with high late-night demand
and earlier end time for areas with
low evening demand.
Mon – Fri. Mon – Sat to align with
enforcement hours.
Single zone (same
rates, hours across
entire paid area).
Tiered or graduated rate structure
with multiple zones based on
demand/activity. Sugar House
should be its own zone with
different rate structure.
Flat fine structure,
lower fines for some
violations than peer
city average.
Increase fines to be in line with
peer city averages and Utah
Uniform Fine Schedule. Consider
graduated fine structure.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 52
Metered Parking Policies, Rates, & Fees
Existing Policies, Rates, & Fees in Salt Lake City
Walker researched Salt Lake City’s existing metered parking system and documented the following items: on-
street metered parking rates, hours of enforcement, time limits, overnight parking, “move -it” policies, and fines
for various selected parking violations that pertain to on-street metered parking/paid parking areas.
On-Street Parking Time Limits
Figure 35 below shows parking time limits for paid on-street parking areas in Salt Lake City.
Figure 35. On-Street Parking Time Limits (Salt Lake City)
On-Street Time Limits Metric Salt Lake City
Time Limits Two hours Mon - Sat. No time limits on Sundays.
Hours that Time Limits are In Place By City ordinance, time limits are in place at all times at any multi-
space meter parking space or 2-hour time zone.
On-Street Parking Rates
Figure 36 shows on-street parking rates in Salt Lake City.
Figure 36. On-Street Parking Rates (Salt Lake City)
Salt Lake City
$2.25 per hour on weekdays. Saturdays and Sundays are free. Motorcycles and accessible parkers are exempt from parking fees.
Some green vehicles may qualify for a free parking permit.
On-Street Parking Hours and Days of Enforcement
Figure 37 shows on-street hours of enforcement for Salt Lake City.
Figure 37. On-Street Hours of Enforcement (Salt Lake City)
Salt Lake City
8 AM - 8 PM Mon - Fri
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 53
Special Events
Figure 38 shows special event parking metrics and rates for Salt Lake City.
Figure 38. Special Event Parking Metrics (Salt Lake City)
On-Street Special Events Rate & Metric Salt Lake City
Special Event Rates for On-Street Meters? No
Event Rate Structure N/A
Overnight Parking
Figure 39 below shows specific regulations, time limits, or rates that may be in place for overnight parking within
paid on-street parking areas in Salt Lake City.
Figure 39. Overnight Parking Metrics (Salt Lake City)
Overnight Parking Metric Salt Lake City
Overnight Parking Managed at On-Street Metered Spaces?
(Excluding Permit Areas/RPPPs) Not specified
Overnight Parking Fee Schedule N/A
“Move-It” Policy
A “Move-it” policy or ordinance specifies that vehicles must relocate to a different parking space once they have
stayed the maximum allowed period of time within a metered on-street parking space. Figure 40 below shows
selected information about Salt Lake City’s Move-it policy.
Figure 40. Move-it Policies (Salt Lake City)
Move-It Ordinance Metric Salt Lake City
"Move It" Ordinance Yes
Minimum Distance a Vehicle Must be Moved Another block face
How Long Ordinance is In Effect Posted time limit + 2 hours
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 54
Metered Parking Violations and Fines
Figure 41 below is a schedule of fees and fines for various selected on-street parking violations directly applicable
to metered parking in Salt Lake City.
Figure 41. Metered Parking Violations and Fines (Salt Lake City)
Selected On-Street Violation & Other
Violation Metric Salt Lake City
Overtime Meter $35
Meter Violation* $75
Parking Outside of Allowed Hours $23
"Feeding the Meter" $23
Accessible Space Violation $150
Graduated Fines? No
Notes
* Section 12.56.150 (D) of the Salt Lake City Code specifies that the presence of a vehicle
in a parking space for which the paid time expired at least two hours prior to the issuance
of the parking citation shall be considered a willful or egregious violation.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 55
Peer City Benchmarking
For the topics researched and documented in the previous section, Walker performed benchmarking for six peer
cities across the western United States. These cities are Denver, Sacramento, Boise, Austin, Portland, and Seattle.
Two of the six peer cities – Portland and Seattle – were selected as aspirational communities that feature
metered/paid on-street parking systems that are larger and more complex than Salt Lake City’s existing system.
Information for peer cities is believed to be current as of August 2022.
On-Street Parking Time Limits
Figure 42 below shows parking time limits for paid on-street parking areas in the peer cities.
Figure 42. On-Street Parking Time Limits (Peer Cities)
On-
Street
Time
Limits
Metric
Peer City
Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle
Time
Limits
Vary.
In CBD,
2 hour
limit.
In
Cherry
Creek,
3 hour
limit.
All metered
spaces are
subject to 10-
hour time
limit.
Tiered
system.
Premium and
Standard: 2
hour limit.
Value: 4 hour
limit.
All metered
spaces are
subject to 10-
hour time limit.
Time limits vary from 1 - 4
hours. Within CBD, time limits
are typically 2 hours. Outside of
CBD, time limits are typically 3 -
4 hours. Within event overlay
areas, a 2-hour time limit goes
into effect during events, even
for spaces that are normally
subject to a longer time limit.
Time limits vary from
2 hours to 4 hours,
with some 10-hour
spaces available. In
areas where
enforcement extends
to 10 PM, the time
limit becomes 5 hours
after 5 PM.
Hours
that
Time
Limits
are In
Place
Varies.
In CBD,
6 AM -
10 PM
Varies. In CBD,
8 AM - 10 PM
Mon - Sat. In
CBD periphery,
8 AM - 8 PM
Mon - Sat. In
Old
Sacramento,
10 AM - 10 PM
Mon - Sun. In
all other areas
where
metered
parking exists,
8 AM - 6 PM
Mon - Sat
Three zones:
Premium,
Standard,
Value.
Premium: 8
AM - 8 PM
Mon - Fri. 10
AM - 5 PM
Sat.
Standard: 8
AM - 8 PM
Mon - Fri. 10
AM - 5 PM
Sat. Value: 8
AM - 6 PM
Mon - Fri
only.
10 zones. Hours
of enforcement
vary widely. 1
zone is enforced
on event days
only. For all
zones,
enforcement
begins at 8 AM.
In CBD, 8 AM - 6
PM Mon - Tue, 8
AM - 12 AM
Wed - Fri, 11
AM - 12 AM Sat.
6 zones. Enforcement begins at
either 8 AM or 9 AM and ends
between 6 PM and 10 PM. In
CBD, 8 AM - 7 PM Mon - Sat, 1
PM - 7 PM Sun. Within event
district overlay areas and during
events, enforcement always
begins 3 hours before an event
and lasts until 3 hours after the
event, regardless of typical
hours or days of enforcement.
Within event overlay areas, time
limits are in place during events,
from 3 hours before an event
begins and last until 3 hours
after it ends.
Most zones: 8 AM - 8
PM. In some zones,
time limits are in
place until 10 PM and
in others, time limits
end at 6 PM. During
events within the
Uptown and Uptown
Triangle zones, event
time limits and rates
can be in effect
during Sundays and
holidays.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 56
On-Street Parking Rates
Figure 43 shows on-street parking rates in the peer cities.
Figure 43. On-Street Parking Rates (Peer Cities)
Peer City
Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle
Varies. In
most areas,
$2 per
hour.
Tiered system. The
base rate is $1.75 per
hour with 4 meter tiers.
Each tier represents the
time limit for parking at
the base rate. Tiers
range from 1+ hour to
4+ hours. For all tiers,
the rate for next hour
after the time limit is
$3. For each hour
thereafter, the rate is
$3.75. Some long-term
meters exist that allow
for up to 10 hours of
parking with a $3 or $6
max rate, depending on
location.
Graduated system
by zone.
Premium: $2 per
hour for first hour,
$3 for 2nd hour
(Mon - Fri), $0.50
per hour (Sat).
Standard: $1.25
per hour for first
hour, $2 for 2nd
hour (Mon - Fri),
$0.50 per hour
(Sat). Value: $0.50
per hour for hours
1 - 2, $1 per hour
for hours 3 - 4. For
all zones, first 20
minutes is free.
Graduated system by
length of stay for all
zones. $2 per hour
for 1 - 2 hour. Then
$3 for hour 3. Rate
then increases by
$0.50 per hour for
each hour thereafter
through hour 7. $5
per hour for hours 8 -
10. First 15 minutes
free. Mopeds and
motorcycles typically
exempt from fees.
Also, prisoners of
war and Purple Heart
recipients are
exempt per Texas
state law.
Varies by zone.
Non-event rates
range from $1
per hour to $2
per hour. In
CBD, rate is $2
per hour.
Vary by zone and time of
day. Morning rates are in
effect between 8 AM and
11 AM. Midday rates are
in effect between 11 AM
and 5 PM. Evening rates
are in effect between 5 PM
and 8 PM (5 PM and 10 PM
in some zones). Morning
rates range from $0.50 to
$2 per hour. Midday rates
range from $1 per hour to
$4 per hour. Evening rates
range from $0.50 to $2.50
per hour. In some zones,
parking is free after 6 PM
with no evening rate in
effect.
On-Street Parking Hours and Days of Enforcement
Figure 44 shows on-street hours of enforcement for the peer cities.
Figure 44. On-Street Hours of Enforcement (Peer Cities)
Peer City
Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle
Varies. In the
CBD, 8 AM - 6
AM Mon - Sat
(No
enforcement
between 6
AM and 8
AM). In
Cherry Creek,
8 AM - 7 PM
Mon - Sat.
Varies. In CBD, 8
AM - 10 PM Mon -
Sat. In CBD
periphery, 8 AM - 8
PM Mon - Sat. In
Old Sacramento, 10
AM - 10 PM Mon -
Sun. In all other
areas where
metered parking
exists, 8 AM - 6 PM
Mon - Sat
Three zones:
Premium,
Standard, Value.
Premium: 8 AM
- 8 PM Mon -
Fri. 10 AM - 5
PM Sat.
Standard: 8 AM
- 8 PM Mon -
Fri. 10 AM - 5
PM Sat. Value:
8 AM - 6 PM
Mon - Fri only.
10 zones. Hours of
enforcement vary widely. 1
zone is enforced on event
days only. For all zones,
enforcement begins at 8 AM.
In CBD, 8 AM - 6 PM Mon -
Tue, 8 AM - 12 AM Wed - Fri,
11 AM - 12 AM Sat.
Motorcycles or mopeds may
exceed posted time limits,
but they may not exceed 12
hours during any paid
parking session at a paid
parking space.
6 zones. Enforcement
begins at either 8 AM or 9
AM and ends between 6
PM and 10 PM. In CBD, 8
AM - 7 PM Mon - Sat, 1 PM
- 7 PM Sun. Within event
district overlay areas and
during events,
enforcement always begins
3 hours before an event
and lasts until 3 hours after
the event, regardless of
typical hours or days of
enforcement.
Most zones:
8 AM - 8
PM. In
some zones,
time limits
are in place
until 10 PM
and in
others, time
limits end at
6 PM.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 57
Special Events
Figure 45 shows special event parking metrics and rates for the peer cities.
Figure 45. Special Event Parking Metrics (Peer Cities)
On-Street
Special
Events Rate
& Metric
Peer City
Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle
Special Event
Rates for On-
Street
Meters?
No Yes No No Yes Yes
Event Rate
Structure N/A
Event rates apply during
events where more than
15,000 attendees are
expected within a designated
special event parking zone.
During events, an event flat
rate applies after the tiered
time limit expires. The base
rate for all tiers is $1.75. For
Tier 1, the flat rate is $14; for
Tier 2, the flat rate is $15.25;
for Tier 3, the flat rate is
$13.50.
N/A N/A
Within event overlay
areas, meter rates
increase to $4 per
hour during events
(starting 3 hours
before event until 3
hours after it ends).
There is a flat $0.20
Climate and Equity
Transaction Fee for
all parking
transactions
Event rates apply during
events where more than
10,000 attendees are
expected within the
Uptown and Uptown
Triangle zones. During
events, between 5 PM and
10 PM, the first 2 hours of
parking are $3 per hour.
Additional hours after the
first 2 are $8 per hour.
Overnight Parking
Figure 46 below shows specific regulations, time limits, or rates that may be in place for overnight parking within
paid on-street parking areas in the peer cities.
Figure 46. Overnight Parking Metrics (Peer Cities)
Overnight Parking
Metric
Peer City
Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle
Overnight Parking
Managed at On-Street
Metered Spaces?
(Excluding Permit
Areas/RPPPs)
Yes Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified
Overnight Parking Fee
Schedule
10 PM - 2 AM:
$1 per hour
2 AM - 6 AM:
$0.50 per hour
6 AM - 8 AM:
Free
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 58
“Move-It” Policy
A “Move-it” policy or ordinance is one that specifies that vehicles must relocate to a different parking space once
they have stayed the maximum allowed period of time within a metered on-street parking space. Figure 47
below shows selected information about the peer cities’ “Move-it” policies.
Figure 47. Move-it Policies (Peer Cities)
Move-It Ordinance
Metric
Peer City
Denver Sacramento Boise Austin Portland Seattle
"Move It" Ordinance Yes Yes Unspecified Unspecified Yes Yes
Minimum Distance a
Vehicle Must be Moved 100' One city block Unspecified Unspecified
Another block
face or 500
feet
One block
How Long Ordinance is
In Effect 24 hours Unspecified Unspecified Unspecified 3 hours Unspecified
Metered Parking Violations and Fines
Figure 48 below is a schedule of fees and fines for various selected on-street parking violations that are directly
applicable to metered parking in the selected peer cities. Figure 49 shows the lowest, average, and highest fines
for each selected violation.
Note that the exact violation labels, definitions, language, and context in each peer city’s code for the violations
listed may differ; Walker selected the particular violations and fines for each city that are most equivalent to Salt
Lake City’s respective violations and associated fines.
Figure 48. Metered Parking Violations and Fines (Peer Cities)
Selected On-Street
Violation & Other
Violation Metric
Peer City
Denver Sacramento* Boise** Austin*** Portland Seattle****
Overtime Meter $35 $35 $21 $30
$44 1st
offense; $50
2nd offense,
$70 3rd
offense.
$44
Meter Violation $35 $50 N/A $40 $65 $47
Parking Outside of
Allowed Hours $35 $40 $26.50 $40 $65 - $95 $47
"Feeding the Meter" $35 $25 N/A $40 $44 $44
Accessible Space
Violation $350 $445 $159 $300 $165 $450
Graduated Fines? No No No No Yes (Overtime
meter)
Yes (Overtime
violations after 1st
are $47)
Notes
* $12.50
mandatory
surcharge for
all violations
** $15 late
fee for fines
over 6 months
*** Fees represent
standard fine. Fines are
reduced if paid early.
All fines include $5 in
statutory court costs.
**** Fine schedule
notes that there is a
fine of $47 for
"repeated overtime"
violations
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 59
Figure 49. Metered Parking Violations and Fines - Summary Statistics (Peer Cities)
Selected On-Street Violation & Other Violation Metric
Peer Cities
Salt Lake
City Min (1st
Offense) Average Max
Overtime Meter $21 $33 $44 $35
Meter Violation $35 $42 $50 $75
Parking Outside of Allowed Hours $27 $35 $40 $23
"Feeding the Meter" $25 $33 $40 $23
Accessible Space Violation $159 $314 $445 $150
Additionally, according to the 2022 Uniform Fine Schedule for traffic-related offenses, as provided by the Utah
State Court System, the suggested fine for an accessible parking space violation is $340.2
2 Utah Courts. “2022 Uniform Fine Schedule.” Accessed September 19, 2022.
https://www.utcourts.gov/rules/appendices/Appendix_C/Uniform_Fine_Schedule.pdf
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 60
Peer City Benchmarking Key Takeaways
• Time limits
o Salt Lake City is the only city that has a uniform time limit in place for all metered parking areas
▪ In 4 of 6 peer cities, the time limit varies depending on area/zone
▪ In 2 of 6 peer cities, a tiered rate system is in place that enables stays of up to 10 hours
• Parking rates
o Salt Lake City is the only city that has a flat hourly rate for metered parking that does not vary by
area, length of stay, or tier
▪ 4 cities have rates that differ by area/zone
▪ 2 cities have rates that differ by length of stay
▪ 1 city has rates that differ by both zone and time of day
▪ 1 city has rates that differ by both area/zone and length of stay
o Salt Lake City is the only city that does not charge for parking on Saturdays in all metered areas
▪ 3 of the 6 peer cities have paid parking uniformly in place on Saturdays
▪ The other peer cities have paid parking in place on Saturdays only within certain
areas/zones
o 4 of the peer cities have paid parking in place on Sundays in some areas/zones and/or during
special events
• Hours and days of enforcement
o Salt Lake City is the only city that has uniform hours of enforcement in place for all metered
parking areas
• Special events
o 3 of the peer cities have different rate and enforcement structures for special events within
certain areas
• Overnight parking
o Denver has implemented a special rate structure and policies for overnight parking at metered
spaces.
o Other peer jurisdictions, as well as Salt Lake City, have no special rules pertaining to overnight
parking
▪ Overnight parking at metered spaces may either be unrestricted or be subject to “no
overnight parking” rules between certain posted hours
• Move-it policy
o 5 of 6 peer cities with “move-it” policies explicitly identified require vehicles to move at least one
city block or block face away, the same as Salt Lake City
o For cities where a time limit was specified, a vehicle cannot park on the same block face again for
at least three hours
• Violations and fines
o All the peer cities observed have higher fines associated with parking outside allowed hours and
“feeding the meter.”
o Salt Lake City’s fine for accessible space violations is less than half the average fine for the peer
cities
o 2 of 6 peer communities have graduated fine structures in place for some or all violations
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 61
Selected Off-Street Parking Rates & Fees
Salt Lake City does not directly own, operate, or manage any paid off -street parking facilities for general public
use. However, as part of this study, Walker has performed an overview of paid parking rates for privately owned -
and -operated off-street parking facilities downtown as a benchmark for which to compare existing on-street
parking rates.
In all, Walker benchmarked 26 off-street parking facilities that offer paid parking for general public use. Rates
researched are shown in Figure 50 below and are current as of July 2022. Note that per-hour figures in cells
highlighted in light orange have been calculated from a listed rate other than one hour (e.g., a given rate for 20
minutes was multiplied by 3 to determine the effective rate for 1 hour).
Figure 50. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates in Downtown Salt Lake City (Day Parking)
Name of Facility Address Parking Operator Hotel? Garage? Flat
Rate
Night/
Evening
Rate
per 1
Hour
per 2
Hours
per
Day or
Max
Rate
The Parkside Tower 215 State St. SP+ No Yes $3.00 $4.00 $10.00
Marriott City Center 220 South State St. Marriott Yes Yes $4.00 $20.00
242 East Broadway 242 E. Broadway ABM No No $3.00 $1.50 $3.00
236 Shelmerdine Ct. 236 Shelmerdine Ct. ABM No No $3.00 $2.00 $4.00
Broadway Center 111 E. Broadway ABM No Yes $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $10.00
175 E. 400 S. Lot 175 E. 400 S. No No $3.50 $7.00
Walker Center Garage 160 Regent St. ABM No Yes $2.00 $3.00 $15.00
One Utah Center 201 Main St. ABM Yes Yes $12
Wells Fargo Center 299 S. Main St. ABM No Yes $3.00 $8.00
Exchange Place 24 E. Broadway ABM No Yes $4.00
South State Garage 324 State St. ABM No Yes $5.00 $3.00 $4.00 $10.00
Marriott City Creek 75 W. Temple Marriott Yes Yes $4.00 $19.00
175 Parking 175 W. Temple Diamond Parking
Services No Yes $10 $5.00
American Plaza Garage 255 W. Temple Republic Parking System No Yes $4.00 $7.00
222 S. Main Garage 222 S. Main ABM No Yes $4.00 $6.00 $20.00
Hilton Salt Lake City
Center 255 W. Temple Hilton Yes Yes $22
City Creek Parking 50 W. 500 S. City Creek No No $8
Grand America Garage 555 S. Main Grand America Hotel Yes Yes $5.00 $9.00 $25.00
Salt Palace Convention
Center 100 S. Temple Salt Palace No Yes $15
Axis Garage 76 Pierpont Ave. ABM No Yes $5.00 $4.00 $6.00 $10.00
U066 Lot 171 W. Pierpont
Ave.
Diamond Parking
Services No No $5.00 $10.00
Sheraton Salt Lake City 150 W. 500 S. SP+ Yes Yes $2.50 $5.00 $15.00
330 W. Temple Lot 220 W. Temple ABM No No $6.00
Hilton DoubleTree 110 W. 600 S. Hilton Yes Yes $15
Royal Wood Lot 250 W. 200 S. ABM No No $5.00 $1.50 $3.00 $5.00
U127 Lot 254 S. 200 W. Diamond Parking
Services No No $5.00 $10.00
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 62
Figure 51 below shows summary statistics calculated based on Figure 50 above.
Figure 51. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates (Day Parking) – Summary Statistics
Per Day or Day Max Rate per Hour Evening Rate
Lowest Average Highest Lowest Average Highest Lowest Average Highest
$5.00 $14.45 $25.00 $1.50 $3.42 $5.00 $2.00 $4.25 $6.00
Also, Walker has researched the cost of monthly parking permit rates at selected off -street facilities where such
parking is offered. While Salt Lake City currently does not offer or provide permit-based parking at any of its paid
on-street meters, it could use off-street parking permit rates benchmarked here as a baseline for establishing
costs for such permits in the future. In all, 15 downtown parking facilities were researched that offered, as of July
2022, monthly permitted parking, as shown in Figure 52 below.
Figure 52. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates in Downtown Salt Lake City (Monthly Permit Parking)
Name of Facility Address Parking Operator Hotel? Garage? Monthly Rate
(Unreserved)
Monthly Rate
(Reserved)
CBRE 257 Parking 257 E. 200 S. CBRE No Yes $55.00
U071 Lot 256 E. 300 S. Diamond Parking
Services No No $100.00
U013 Lot 217 E. 400 S. Diamond Parking
Services No No $100.00
U145 Lot 220 S. Edison St. Diamond Parking
Services No Yes $95.00
Brighton Bank Lot 311 S. State St. Diamond Parking
Services No No $85.00
175 E. 400 S. Lot 175 E. 400 S. No No $120.00
Regent Street Garage 119 S. Regent St. City Creek No Yes $115.00 $132.00
One Utah Center 201 Main St. ABM Yes Yes $95.00
South State Garage 324 State St. ABM No Yes $105.00
175 Parking 175 W. Temple Diamond Parking
Services No Yes $105.00
170 S. Main 170 S. Main ABM No Yes $85.00
City Creek Parking 50 W. 500 S. City Creek No No $64.00
Axis Garage 76 Pierpont Ave. ABM No Yes $80.00
U066 Lot 171 W. Pierpont
Ave.
Diamond Parking
Services No No $100.00
U075 Lot 279 W. 200 S. Diamond Parking
Services No No $100.00
Figure 53 below shows summary statistics calculated based on Figure 52 above.
Figure 53. Selected Off-Street Parking Rates (Monthly Parking) – Summary Statistics
Lowest Monthly Rate Average Monthly Rate
(Unreserved)
Average Monthly Rate
(Reserved) Highest Monthly Rate
$55.00 $87.33 $101.20 $132.00
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 63
Recommendations & Other Suggested Items
On-Street Parking Time Limits
Salt Lake City has a uniform time limit of two hours in place for all metered parking. It is the only city, compared
to the peer cities examined, that has a uniform time limit. Having different time limits in place can serve to
customize or tailor on-street parking to the adjacent land uses the parking serves and account for the particular
predominate use case for that parking.
Longer time limits can allow for longer parking stays to take place, giving parkers a chance to avoid citations for
overtime parking or for “feeding the meter.” Shorter time limits can allow for higher turnover compared to the
average parking space for very high demand or high-activity parking spaces.
From a revenue generation perspective, time limits for paid parking are mostly unrelated to a space’s revenue
generation potential. Within an 8-hour period, the amount of revenue generated would be the same (under a
flat-rate system) whether the space sees four vehicles parked for 2 hours a piece or whether it sees one vehicle
parked for 8 hours. It should be noted that under a tiered system, longer time limits may actually increase
revenue compared to a flat-rate system, all other things being equal, since some parkers will pay a higher rate per
hour to for longer stays.
Recommendations
• In conjunction with suggested actions regarding parking rates, increase time limit from 2 to 4 hours, at
least for most spaces within the paid system.
o A tiered or graduated rate structure would take over as the primary mechanism for encouraging
turnover and incentivizing shorter stays while allowing longer stays if needed without being in
violation.
o A maximum time limit should still be in place to discourage overnight parking.
Suggested Items for Consideration
• Time limits of fewer than 2 hours for certain spaces in very high demand areas or in other special
contexts.
On-Street Parking Rates
Salt Lake City is a large city and has a high-activity and diverse downtown that continues to grow. It is not
exclusively comprised of office land use where activity peaks between 9 AM and 5 PM on weekdays. The
downtown, as well as peripheral areas such as Gateway, feature dining, night life, entertainment, and services
land uses, as well as the continued development of multi-family residential.
On-street meter rates today in Salt Lake City are universally $2.25 per hour, and Saturdays and Sundays are free.
This is despite substantial differences in the ways that parkers use metered parking, as well as differences in
parking occupancy and activity levels across the paid parking area. Also, according to Walker’s current
understanding, a two-hour time limit for on-street parking still applies on Saturdays despite decreased or no
enforcement on Saturdays as parking is free.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 64
Every peer city examined has on-street metered parking rates that varied across the system. Rates vary as a
function of area or zone, length of stay, tier, or time of day. It should be noted that, for every peer city, the
highest rate observed, for at least the first 2 hours, was lower than Salt Lake City’s flat rate, with the typical
highest rate for the first hour, regardless of tier or zone, being $2 per hour.
In the case of parking rates that vary by area, some areas/zones feature higher per-hour rates than others as a
function of the land use density and activity levels of a given area. The highest-activity areas within the central
business district command higher prices than lower-density areas and/or areas with lower activity levels. The
rate, therefore, takes into account the value, or the “market rate,” of on-street parking dynamically. An
alternative or additional way to account for the “market rate” of a respective metered parking space is to vary the
rate by time of day or day of week, acknowledging that parking demand may differ widely based on time of day
for all areas/zones, regardless of the peak level of activity for that area/zone.
In the case of parking rates that vary by length of stay, rates are designed to escalate according to a tier structure,
with lower rates for the first hour or two than for subsequent hours. For these peer systems, a graduated, or
tiered, rate system accomplishes the purpose of encouraging on-street parking turnover while also allowing for
longer parking stays to take place if needed, giving parkers a chance to avoid citations for overtime parking or for
“feeding the meter.
Parking meter rates should, first and foremost, be set at rates that match the cost of services and programs that
the revenue is intended to pay for. Also, they should be responsive to users’ parking behavior patterns, which can
differ widely, and potentially be future proofed for managing other uses of the curb within the paid parking area,
such as TNC’s (Uber/Lyft), commercial deliveries/loading, or other short-term use.
One other important consideration or best practice is that on-street parking should, in general, be more
expensive per hour than off-street parking. This is to incentivize longer-term parkers to use off-street facilities,
freeing up on-street parking for shorter stays and increasing parking availability for customers or visitors. If on -
street parking is not as expensive as off-street parking, on-street parking may be occupied by employees and
other long-term parkers who are cost incentivized not to use off-street parking, which typically already operates
at a competitive and convenience disadvantage. Parkers of all user groups may elect to “cruise,” or circulate
around the street grid looking for or waiting for an on-street space to free up instead of using an off-street space.
This can cause inconvenience from a time perspective as well as cause traffic congestion and unnecessary
greenhouse gas emissions.
While Salt Lake City does not operate a system of city-owned and -operated parking structures or lots intended
for general public use, the average per-hour rate for private parking garages is higher than the per-hour rate for
on-street parking by more than a dollar. For long-term parkers, a rate structure should be set up such that the
rate per hour for stays exceeding 4 hours is higher than the predominate average off -street parking rate, in order
to incentivize parkers to use off-street facilities instead for long stays.
Recommendations
• Increase base rate from $2.25 to $2.50 per hour.
• Transition to a tiered rate structure where parking rates increase per hour for longer parking stays
o In order to disincentivize long-term stays, and encourage such parkers to use off-street facilities,
the per-hour rate should incrementally increase until at least the average off-street public parking
rate is reached or exceeded.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 65
o For the existing paid parking area, Walker recommends the following tiered rate schedule:
▪ $2.50 per hour for the first 2 hours.
▪ $5 per hour for the 3rd hour.
▪ $10 per hour for the 4th hour.
Suggested Items for Consideration
• Zone-based pricing for on-street rates
o Zones should be defined based on parking demand patterns in a given area.
▪ Sugar House can or should be a separate zone from the existing paid area (downtown),
with its own rate schedule that is commensurate with parking demand patterns in that
area.
▪ Downtown can or should be divided into at least 2 zones, with 1 zone comprising high-
utilization parking areas with higher rates and the other comprising lower-utilization
parking areas with lower rates.
• A different tiered rate schedule or flat per-hour schedule could be put into place
for lower-demand zone(s).
▪ Other zones can be added when or if the area of the paid parking system were to
increase with their own rate structure.
On-Street Hours and Days of Enforcement
Hours of enforcement are Monday – Friday from 8 AM to 8 PM in Salt Lake City. As with parking rates, this is also
despite substantial differences in the ways that parkers use metered parking, as well as diffe rences in parking
occupancy and activity levels across the paid parking area.
Accordingly, every peer city examined also set different hours of enforcement that varied as a function of the
same variables used to determine rate structures. Paid parking, as a baseline, should be in place during all time
periods where parking activity levels warrant or justify it.
Hours of enforcement should correlate with the dynamic rate structure and also be set as a function of the
“market rate” and occupancy/behavior patterns. Parking enforcement requires time, labor, and resources.
Enforcement should be more concentrated in areas of higher activity and/or higher revenue generation, and
hours of enforcement should differ based on the parking activity patterns of a given area. Finally, cost-effective
enforcement should be active during all times for which parking restrictions are in place in any paid system/within
any paid area.
Recommendations
• Expand paid parking into Saturdays.
o This change would align enforcement hours with paid parking hours across the week.
• Extend paid parking to 10 PM within the existing paid parking area.
Suggested Items for Consideration
• Later end time for enforcement in areas and on days where on-street parking utilization remains elevated
past 10 PM.
o Such areas may include land uses such as night life, entertainment, et cetera.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 66
• Earlier end time for enforcement in areas and on days where on-street parking utilization may decrease
substantially after a certain time, making enforcement non-cost-effective
o Such areas may include land uses such as single-use office.
▪ For such areas, enforcement may conclude at 5 or 6 PM.
Special Events
Like some of the peer cities examined, Salt Lake City’s downtown features at least one significant generator of
special event activity: the Vivint Arena, used for professional basketball as well as for other special events such as
concerts. As a result, on-street parking activity along streets immediately surrounding the arena may surge
during games or events, which may occur during evenings or on weekends, and/or when parking activity levels
are much lower than their typical peak. On-street parking in this area during such events should be reflective of
and responsive to such surges, regardless of whether they remain at a flat rate or are set to vary during non-event
times.
Suggested Items for Consideration
• Establish a special zone or an overlay zone around the Vivint Arena where special event paid parking rates
and hours of enforcement would apply during large events at the arena.
o For special event rates, the existing two-hour time limit for on-street parking would have to be
eliminated or modified (See “Time Limits” above).
o Walker suggests setting per-hour special event rates for the first 1 -2 hours based on the average
per-hour rate for the off-street parking system to provide non-event parkers with an on-street
parking option.
o For every hour after the 2nd hour, the per-hour rate should be such that the “max rate” for an
event should be competitive with event day maxes for the off-street parking system.
Overnight Parking
Salt Lake City is in line with most peer cities in terms of overnight parking. One city has implemented a special
rate structure and policies for overnight parking.
Suggested Items for Consideration
• None at this time.
Move-It Policy
All peer cities that had a “Move-It” policy in place required vehicles within the on-street metered area to move at
least one block face away from where they were previously parked once they reach the maximum time limit.
However, all peer cities examined have typical city block lengths that are shorter than downtown Salt Lake City.
Also, the time for which a parker may not be allowed to park within the minimum distance that the parker was
required to move was at least 3 hours. Typically, a “no repark allowed” time of at least 3 hours helps to
discourage drivers from moving to take advantage of longer time limits and/or lower parking rates that may go
into effect during the parker’s stay.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 67
Suggested Items for Consideration
• Increase the time period for which a vehicle may not be allowed to return to the same parking space to at
least 4 hours if time limits are expanded to 4 hours (See “Time Limits” above).
Violations & Fines
Fine amounts for parking violations should be set such that they incentivize parkers to not commit recurring
violations. For violations that are serious in nature, fines should be set such that parkers are highly incentivized
not to commit any violation.
While the ultimate goal of parking management is to create and support transportation options for people and
support uniform following of all rules and regulations, fines for violations are an important part of encouraging
compliance and mitigating the negative consequences of rule breaking. For example, when a parker chooses to
overstay a time limit in a parking space, they in turn reduce the ability of that parking space to serve other
parkers. When a parker neglects to pay for a metered parking space, they reduce the revenue generated by that
parking space and can impact the city’s ability to run services and programs paid for by parking revenues.
There is undoubtedly a community impact associated with parking violations. If fines are too low, and especially if
enforcement is lacking, parkers may simply choose to risk citation and pay a fine instead of moving their vehicles
or paying the per-hour rate.
Salt Lake City’s fine for overtime meters was in line with the peer city average. The city’s fine for meter violations
was much higher, though the violation may be defined differently than for peer cities and is this not directly
comparable. Fines for parking outside of allowed hours and for feeding the meter were lower than the peer city
average, though it should be noted that some peer cities had rate and time limit structures such that those
violations are partially or completely obsolete in those cities.
The major divergence of note was the fine for accessible space violations, where the fine in Salt Lake City was
notably less than the average for the peer cities. It was also less than the suggested fine amount found in the
2022 Uniform Fine Schedule as published by the Utah State Court System. Two of the 6 peer cities featured some
version of graduated fines as a disincentive for repeated offenses.
Recommendations
• Increase fines from the current levels for all 5 parking violation types discussed in the peer benchmarking
analysis.
o Increases should bring fines for given violations more in line with the peer city averages and/or
take into account inflation since fines were originally established.
• The fine for accessible space violations should be closer to the suggested fine published by the Utah State
Courts as of 2022 in their Uniform Fine Schedule ($340).
Suggested Items for Consideration
• Consider a graduated fine structure where fines increase by at least 25% for subsequent parking
violations of the same type that occur within one year of the first such violation.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 68
Appendix 07
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 69
Appendix
Evaluation of Metered Parking
Recommendations
Figure 54. Candidates for Removal in Existing Paid Area
Address IPS Pole
245 E 300 S 34520
241 S 200 E 34560
356 W 200 S 34350
432 S 200 E 34133
450 S 300 E 34504
245 E 500 S 34486
447 S 100 E 34453
257 E 200 S 34463
256 E 300 S 34546
254 E 500 S 34501
333 S 200 E 34194
258 S 200 E 34562
249 S Edison St 34544
253 E 100 S 34573
110 W Pierpont Ave 34413
160 N Main St 34429
142 S 200 W 34442
143 N Main St 34434
185 E Social Hall Ave 34478
382 S West Temple St 34583
180 E Social Hall Ave 34477
48 S 200 E 34597
39 W 500 S 34541
55 S 200 E 34588
52 S 300 E 34570
44 W 500 S 34532
59 S 300 E 34516
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 70
Potential Expansion of Parking Meters
Mid to Long Term
Figure 55. Specific Land Uses per Neighborhood Plan and Corresponding Generalized Land Uses
Neighborhood
or Sub Area
Corresponding General Land Uses Specific Land Use from Neighborhood or Sub Area Plan
Color Corresponding
Density
Corresponding
Land Use
Category
Color Land Use/Zone Name
Sugar House
Master Plan
Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential Medium High Density Residential
Medium Density Mixed Use Mixed Use - Low Intensity
Business District Mixed Use - Neighborhood Scale
High Density Mixed Use Mixed Use - High Intensity
Business District Mixed Use - Town Center Scale
Medium Density Commercial Neighborhood Business
High Density Commercial N/A
Central
Community
Master Plan
Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential
Medium High Density Residential
High Density Residential High Density Residential
Medium Density Mixed Use
Medium Residential/Mixed Use
Striped Residential/Office Mixed Use
Medium Density Transit Orientated Development
High Density Mixed Use High Mixed Use
High Density Transit Orientated Development
Medium Density Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
Striped Central Business District Support
High Density Commercial Central Business District
The Avenues
Master Plan
Medium Density Residential Medium Density (Residential)
High Density Residential High Density (Residential)
Medium Density Mixed Use N/A
High Density Mixed Use N/A
Medium Density Commercial Business/Commercial
High Density Commercial N/A
Capitol Hill
Master Plan
Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential
Medium/High Density Residential
High Density Residential High Density Residential
Medium Density Mixed Use Striped (/) Medium Mixed Use
Striped (\) Medium/High Mixed Use
High Density Mixed Use Crosshatch (X) High Density Mixed Use
Medium Density Commercial General Commercial
High Density Commercial N/A
Gateway District
Land
Development and
Master Plan*
Medium Density Residential N/A
High Density Residential N/A
High Density Mixed Use Striped (\) Residential
White Dots Commercial
Medium Density Mixed Use Retail
Crosshatch (X) Secondary Support Commercial
Medium Density Commercial N/A
High Density Commercial N/A
Salt Lake City Corporation
Metered Parking Analysis (DRAFT)
WALKER CONSULTANTS | 71
Figure 56. Composite of Future Land Use Maps/Plans onto Study Areas
FINANCIAL
UPDATEJanuary 16, 2024
FY 2023 REVENUES –ALL
$41.86 M Beyond Budget
Spike in Q4
$(100,000,000)
$-
$100,000,000
$200,000,000
$300,000,000
$400,000,000
$500,000,000
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Sum of Actuals
Cumulative Actuals
Budget Amount
Forecasted amount
2
Major Category Budget Actual Variance
Taxes 287,722,785 313,755,533 26,032,748
Charges, Fees, and Rentals 4,432,794 5,811,688 1,378,894
Fines 3,765,174 3,519,515 (245,659)
Interest Income 2,071,154 11,814,671 9,743,517
Interfund Reimbursement 24,431,717 25,857,520 1,425,803
Intergovernmental Revenue 4,644,622 5,936,560 1,291,938
Licenses and Permits 40,736,114 43,946,510 3,210,396
Miscellaneous Revenues 3,455,828 4,691,828 1,236,000
Parking Meter Collections 2,635,475 2,616,329 (19,146)
Transfers 54,013,488 51,822,655 (2,190,833)
Grand Total 427,909,151 469,772,809 41,863,658
FY 2023 REVENUES –ALL
3
FY 2023 EXPENSES –ALL
$30 M Below Budget
$-
$100,000,000
$200,000,000
$300,000,000
$400,000,000
$500,000,000
$600,000,000
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Sum of Actuals
Cumulative Total
Budget
4
FY 2023 EXPENSES –PERSONNEL
$-
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Sum of Actuals
Cumulative Total
Budget
$15.7 M Below Budget
5
FY 2023 VACANCY SAVINGS BY DEPT
-$66,834
$789,622
$708,634
$666,939
$229,610
$949,060
$448,783
$93,219
$186,243
$722,641
$7,290,705
$366,830
$3,284,279
-20M M 20M 40M 60M 80M 100M 120M
911 Dispatch Bureau
City Council Office
Community & Neighborhoods
Department of Finance
Economic Development
Fire Department
Human Resources Department
Justice Court
Office of the City Attorney
Office of the Mayor
Police Department
Public Lands
Public Services
Variance
2023 Amend Budget
2023 Actuals
6
Major Category Budget Actual Variance
Personal Services 259,355,475 243,685,745 15,669,730
Charges and Services 96,134,386 86,396,601 9,737,785
Operating & Maintenance Supply 17,054,952 13,384,844 3,670,109
Capital Expenditures 7,102,802 3,053,081 4,049,721
Transfers Out 99,167,639 81,117,256 18,050,383*
Carry Forward Encumbrances 21,157,931
Grand Total 478,815,254 427,637,526 30,019,797
FY 2023 EXPENSES –ALL
7
FY 2023 YEAR END FUND BALANCE
TOTAL TOTAL Beginning Fund Balance 160,123,682 202,575,741 Use of Fund Balance (22,836,870) (32,868,799) Prior Year Encumbrances (20,423,209) (21,157,931) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 116,863,603 148,549,011
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 24.85%33.42%Year End CAFR AdjustmentsRevenue Changes - - Expense Changes (2,257,746) (2,484,423) Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 114,605,857 146,064,588
Final Fund Balance Percent 24.37%32.86%Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance (7,442,610) (1,170,982)
Adjusted Fund Balance 178,933,386 143,722,624
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 38.05%32.33%
Projected Revenue 470,299,454 444,504,923
FY2023 Budget FY2024 Budget
8
Major Category FY 24 Budget FY 24 Actuals New Projection Variance
Taxes 261,229,840 261,229,840 258,222,765 (3,007,075)
Charges, Fees, and Rentals 5,427,047 5,427,047 6,452,523 1,025,476
Fines 2,561,547 2,561,547 2,567,590 6,043
Interest Income 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 0
Interfund Reimbursement 26,131,213 26,131,213 26,144,079 12,866
Intergovernmental Revenue 5,134,621 5,134,621 5,234,598 99,977
Licenses and Permits 40,879,327 40,879,327 40,934,211 54,884
Miscellaneous Revenues 4,458,012 4,458,012 4,478,294 20,282
Parking Meter Collections 2,801,089 2,801,089 2,801,089 0
Transfers 9,938,944 9,938,944 9,938,944 0
Total w/o Special Tax 366,561,640 366,561,640 364,774,093 (1,787,547)
Sales Tax Additional ½49,084,479 49,084,479 49,484,479 400,000
Total General Fund 415,646,119 415,646,119 414,258,572 (1,387,547)
FY 2024 REVENUE PROJECTION
(NOVEMBER)
9
10
*Local Sales and Use Tax
1%
Referred to as General Sales Tax
Funding Our Future
0.5%
County Option Sales Tax for Transportation
0.25%
: City revenue is about 75% of tax at POS
: 61% of Local Sales and Use revenue
: 9% of Local Sales and Use revenue
SALES TAX OVERVIEW
HISTORICAL REVENUE
11
FY 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Actuals 61,864,445 64,897,423 66,324,147 73,778,034 86,532,634 89,090,809 89,500,000
Actuals Percentage Change 8.31%4.90%2.20%11.24%17.29%2.96%0.46%
Budgets 58,016,887 62,950,961 65,350,000 62,049,593 68,119,999 83,500,000 92,500,000
Budgets Percentage Change 6.78%8.50%3.81%-5.05%9.78%22.58%10.78%
Over/Under Budget 3,847,558 1,946,462 974,147 11,728,441 18,412,635 5,590,809 (3,000,000)
-
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Sales Tax
Budget vs Actuals
Budgets Actuals
*est.
SALES TAX DISTRIBUTION
(OCTOBER)
12
July - October Sales Tax Distribution: 75%
Sector Name sales_credit Diff FY Y/Y % Ch % of Total sales_credit Diff FY Y/Y % Ch % of Total
Retail Trade 11,669,931 886,646 8%38.6%11,710,220 40,289 0%40.0%
Wholesale Trade 4,198,147 553,381 15%13.9%3,581,373 (616,775) -15%12.2%
Accommodation and Food Services 3,790,277 674,979 22%12.5%3,920,095 129,817 3%13.4%
Manufacturing 2,182,771 231,529 12%7.2%1,925,191 (257,580) -12%6.6%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,235,755 (160,637) -12%4.1%1,248,372 12,617 1%4.3%
Information 1,380,392 93,315 7%4.6%1,265,843 (114,549) -8%4.3%
Other Services (except Public Administration)880,333 (5,635) -1%2.9%840,602 (39,731) -5%2.9%
Utilities 829,472 151,120 22%2.7%883,431 53,959 7%3.0%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 861,274 118,225 16%2.9%876,139 14,866 2%3.0%
Construction 841,073 401,516 91%2.8%538,670 (302,403) -36%1.8%
Admin and Supp, Waste Mgmt and Rem Services 745,371 73,762 11%2.5%694,893 (50,478) -7%2.4%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 542,381 219,462 68%1.8%485,467 (56,914) -10%1.7%
Total 29,157,177 3,237,662 12.5%96.5%27,970,296 (1,186,881) -4.1%95.6%
2023 2024