[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6177093,"mediaKeyId","5341766-8cac5ba3cdbe391370cb4c29c6258b7c","parentId",5341766,"title","Council hears follow‑up on housing program funds, tenant/homeowner loan fund and NOAH preservation pilot","audioSeconds",1232,"startMs",3457000,"endMs",4689000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5341766-8cac5ba3cdbe391370cb4c29c6258b7c&start=3457&end=4689","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5341766-8cac5ba3cdbe391370cb4c29c6258b7c/thumbnail_3457000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6177093/Salt-Lake-City/Salt-Lake-County/Utah/Council-hears-followup-on-housing-program-funds-tenanthomeowner-loan-fund-and-NOAH-preservation-pilot","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177093-b15a02a59e4488498b7eb5c701bcc6c5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151354&Signature=lGO5ZuPEbshj9yfNRliLKC0tD1LWaO1sMGMKbISFrwUIPvfdo4Uv9gO8w2XbYyeLNZc8z8B8AS2mQj9F2xPaicKnWoWSkk7Xv~cK16yYRGD8ArQaB1L9eOBrpEHFG~~hTpHaGa0bi1x4GOzDZyJ5qA9A6EnpZX05eLK9SQOGlEm8ugnX6xjxbMF1lh4FheQXXmaWfTHuxHQn1AtzPlmUKmNU1fnNPEJr~gtHOCWh7bh9R5oX~Q0hzGDGoxPrlrGPbfQ5A8bVzpLRBqVrB4T5QHGwjavPRb5OTfzo7pirA3b4HiNEBdEGjV1cQT3F~AKms2cgq-F9NYSjlzgonm1FpQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Salt Lake City, Utah","date","2025-07-09T12:39:19Z","article","Salt Lake City staff on July 8 presented final policy recommendations for the city’s housing program funds, including a new tenant and homeowner loan fund, adjustments to budgeting and reporting standards, and three program proposals: home repair, a community land trust (CLT) program with city‑issued mortgages, and a pilot program to preserve naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH).

The policy would centralize program income and create a self‑replenishing loan fund to support city‑operated programs and subrecipient projects. Tammy Hunsaker, director of Community and Neighborhoods, described the proposed loan fund and the administrative structure: a housing program funds loan committee would approve funding directly to homeowners; the council would make final funding decisions where disbursements go to landlords or third‑party property owners.

Program terms discussed included a home repair program that provides project management and pays contractors directly on behalf of homeowners, with grants for seniors and people with disabilities up to $2,500 and loans up to $50,000 (deferred or repaid depending on AMI). Hunsaker described the CLT program’s unusual city role: the city would issue below‑market 30‑year mortgages and the city would need budget to repurchase or pay out shared‑equity amounts when CLT homes are resold. She said the CLT equity formula would allow homeowners to receive 1.75% of the original sales price per year of ownership, subject to appraisal, when selling.

On NOAH preservation, staff outlined a pilot that combines a loan and grant per unit with a 15‑year affordability period (or length of loan if longer). Council members provided a straw poll asking staff to prioritize NOAH incentives for smaller property owners (for example, buildings with fewer units), but they asked legal and administrative staff to return with a recommended and legally feasible threshold (number of units or other measures) and to analyze whether acquisition should be an eligible use of funds. Council member Dugan, among others, said prioritizing smaller landlords — not large institutional owners — should be a policy goal; staff said they would return with recommendations on unit counts or other metrics.

Council members also asked for midyear check‑ins and annual reporting on program metrics, to ensure budget allocations remain aligned with federal funding changes. Staff noted a $1.2 million council allocation to seed the NOAH pilot, and said program income returned from CLT mortgages and loan repayments would flow back into the tenant and homeowner loan fund to sustain future cycles.

What’s next: staff will return with legal analysis and recommended thresholds for prioritizing small property owners in the NOAH program, further detail on CLT operating costs and options for public–private partnerships, and midyear reporting metrics before the planned August adoption.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Salt Lake City Council Work Session - July 8, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Salt Lake City staff on July 8 presented policy recommendations to centralize housing program funds into a tenant and homeowner loan fund and described three proposed programs: home repair, an expanded community land trust, and a NOAH preservation pilot.","taxTitle","Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah","taxId",2941,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6177098,"Council reviews proposed civil enforcement for unruly parties, shifting fines to property owners",1402,1948000,3350000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5341766-8cac5ba3cdbe391370cb4c29c6258b7c&start=1948&end=3350","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5341766-8cac5ba3cdbe391370cb4c29c6258b7c/thumbnail_1948000.jpg","/articles/6177098/Salt-Lake-City/Salt-Lake-County/Utah/Council-reviews-proposed-civil-enforcement-for-unruly-parties-shifting-fines-to-property-owners","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177098-1782d1a6ef58100cf721885c2101f559/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151354&Signature=WejWcV86V-~-DXDqFylmtYVNW0WWZgCQzib9c1NjjY7RjzEWkhU4C9gQ2qxvgiw8equKg6UrnEYwlH82PwB1ksufJ7V40GATu~Di4wv1ikssIFBEMMoAYpJE630gT4o0S9Dy9asgkm~qiwAA5AlV3pWxph3KCLHg4kAZ5u3QbDQPmOkuxg~1KqyMJOA-NDqkBzpFgwbq5zex4ehFoUxVgAC7o1YqjbsgpWyNQDkuKcm8XV6M3p1kcYjBW5c6yZzaSeOJDfHT1Qv9XnxtOt1UMcU3CvgjnfAeKxAJvCpfD~N31BWTlyDmMsR45t-FJAhElJyzg8PLxqzlLP-7h9o8BA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Salt Lake City officials on July 8 presented proposed amendments to Chapter 11.14 (parties, gatherings, or events) that would create a civil enforcement tool aimed at unruly, often large, residential gatherings and allow non‑sworn members of the police department to document incidents for civil fines.

The administration told the council the ordinance targets gatherings of three or more people near a residence when officers observe one or more law violations or disturbances — for example, excessive noise, underage drinking, fighting, littering or obstruction of public ways. The proposal would authorize non‑sworn members of the police department (for example, the civilian response team) to document incidents so sworn officers can focus on higher‑priority calls. Under the draft, the previously eliminated police service fee for parties would be replaced with a $1,000 civil fine issued to the property owner after a prior warning.

Michael Sander, council policy analyst, summarized the proposal: “The administration is bringing forward this proposed ordinance today that introduces a civil enforcement tool to address unruly parties, gatherings, and events … The proposal would authorize non sworn members of the police department, such as the community responders, to respond to and document these incidents, which would allow sworn officers to focus on higher priority calls.” Deputy Chief Bill Manzanaras and other police speakers described operational goals to reduce the burden on sworn officers and to hold property owners accountable when identifying the individual host is impractical.

Council members raised concerns about over‑enforcement and unintended housing consequences. Council member Lopez Chavez asked how the policy would avoid regulating family gatherings or outdoor permitted events; the administration and police said the focus is on large, disruptive gatherings and listed observable behaviors that would trigger action. Several council members asked about training and who would be authorized to document incidents; police representatives said the draft contemplates sworn and non‑sworn police department members (the civilian response team) performing documentation duties but that non‑sworn staff would not be sent to make direct contact at doors for safety reasons.

Elected officials also asked how the city would avoid penalizing homeowners where neighbors’ subjective complaints — for example, music — do not amount to unlawful conduct. Council members asked for clarity on whether the city permits private‑property events (staff said the city does not permit private house parties; permits generally apply to public spaces like streets or parks) and whether additional civilian response team positions or budget amendments would be needed to sustain the program. Police said increased PCRT staffing would likely be necessary and that the proposal is intended to complement, not replace, sworn officer responses.

What’s next: staff will prepare the ordinance language and policy questions for a formal meeting scheduled for August 12; council members requested additional detail on training, documentation standards and non‑sworn responder roles before final action.

","Administration briefed council on proposed amendments to Chapter 11.14 to allow non‑sworn police personnel to document large unlawful gatherings and to replace a police service fee with a $1,000 civil fine assessed to property owners after prior warning.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6177103,"Salt Lake City council debates step‑backs, parking and timing for mixed‑use zoning consolidation",830,523000,1353000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5341766-8cac5ba3cdbe391370cb4c29c6258b7c&start=523&end=1353","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5341766-8cac5ba3cdbe391370cb4c29c6258b7c/thumbnail_523000.jpg","/articles/6177103/Salt-Lake-City/Salt-Lake-County/Utah/Salt-Lake-City-council-debates-stepbacks-parking-and-timing-for-mixeduse-zoning-consolidation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177103-ac4274c50e7dd991c74b03f2de26e140/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151354&Signature=DRq-Z925pdn~v7iL2vcImfYxnoAOh7LLIMAcnjIDOKcz-fTzUHnZyF8gX95mWfulh~vSmvVKGRh0Ci0iRNWNUWS-23Q~tlG0TZmmlcGxWiAb1rOwsxu8-VBs2jHjXHQNc3iaZkBwhzs3xdzolNe7HJuNhnTSPUlJf3VRst77pJPDCjGAauQsfO7tB45cTQKIfo55EGSfql2N5tsyKSFutg24hoYGypTl1gRreWKbADuPtmfxLMPqz8Lkkn5Q4XgSolCOsmDqKVbYU4uxU8grS-LFOFyV4adLrYyQA0eH0aHTPh1VJf39~kR-S8gV8IxZqbts7kycsNDicPdGJoNF-g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Salt Lake City Council members and planning staff on July 8 discussed revisions to a proposed mixed‑use (MU) zoning consolidation ordinance, focusing on upper‑level step‑backs, parking requirements and the timing of implementation.

The discussion matters because the ordinance would replace multiple MU and residential designations across the city; changes to setback and parking rules affect where and how much new development can occur and which existing permit applicants can complete projects under the current code.

Planning staff said the city considered a transitional overlap during which applicants could choose to complete projects under the existing code or the new MU rules. Staff reported the city attorney’s office advised against a 6‑month overlap as not legal. As one staff summary put it, the attorney’s office “advised against it, stating that it would not be legal for the council to do that.” Council members then discussed narrower alternatives, including a shorter, three‑month delayed implementation and development agreements for individual property owners who want to complete projects under the current code.

Planning and transportation staff also outlined administrative options that may reduce the need for development agreements. Nick Norris, planning staff, described parking alternatives already in the code: affordable housing projects may qualify for large reductions — “between a 35, I think, all the way actually up to 65% of a reduction for the very, low AMI types of housing,” he said — and projects near high‑frequency transit can get up to an additional 15% reduction. Staff noted applicants can also submit a parking study for administrative approval and that building‑preservation incentives include an administrative plan development process that can reduce parking requirements at staff level.

Council debate centered on the step‑back rule that would require upper‑level setbacks where a taller MU zone abuts lower‑scale residential zones. One option the council previously considered (option 1) would apply step‑backs citywide where the abutting street is narrower than 90 feet. Council member Mano said that approach affects many properties in her district and asked to reconsider. Council member Romano proposed adopting option 3 — a geographically targeted approach that would require step‑backs only inside the area that is eligible for additional height (the boundary described by staff as McClellan to 13th East and 2100 South to I‑80). Romano said, “we would go with the proposed option 3, which is to do the geographic boundary.” Several council members signaled support for that narrower approach.

Council members also debated transition timing. With the attorney’s advice that a 6‑month overlap would not be legal, some members said a three‑month delayed effective date combined with allowing applicants to start review now would provide most of the intended relief without violating legal limits. Others said parking is the predominant concern raised to them and that existing administrative remedies might solve many cases. No formal vote was taken; staff agreed to include the geographic boundary language as an option on the motion sheet for the council’s upcoming formal meeting.

What’s next: staff will update the motion sheet to reflect the geographic boundary option and will bring the ordinance back for formal action. The council’s formal meeting that evening will be the next opportunity for public comment on the item.

","At a July 8 work session the Salt Lake City Council heard from planning staff, legal counsel and council members on proposed mixed‑use (MU) zoning consolidation, focusing on whether to narrow step‑back rules, parking differences between old and new zones, and how long to delay implementation after adoption.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6177088,"Council reviews Capital Improvement Program follow‑up items and project priorities",1582,4836000,6418000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5341766-8cac5ba3cdbe391370cb4c29c6258b7c&start=4836&end=6418","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5341766-8cac5ba3cdbe391370cb4c29c6258b7c/thumbnail_4836000.jpg","/articles/6177088/Salt-Lake-City/Salt-Lake-County/Utah/Council-reviews-Capital-Improvement-Program-followup-items-and-project-priorities","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177088-40960807a2ea4cae22750b8d1850d7e3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151354&Signature=PO-HtRVdBQc1xcvOFhTzFRgZ5gY-6wTozOcthl89~mpf~3wATcXpVoYVKAJ~xmXqFXD6bAwWsh~Js-4zVAZpHjozVjY5LWz2uwDeI3oKYQnXc2baGGOHDdUJU3J7vDRtLJm-9m3xvojR3RMQAQnhts4Z7QGUYErGUlvxlXYH3DRDMabw5WGFjCWUl6AIwcoWIZHYE~hy0GFVmQUxvvi0UJ0GWFSA5hS6I-dm5v6xBZdRCtAXN~~2EGlFVtFMhuVjnQXZNRMKcgw8j6~~Hfz5xFok-maG1b54VMe0MCijg7ez9JoMAYaxMdTi0hadvZEP-3SwuY-vZxFlefbND4~MAw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Salt Lake City staff on July 8 briefed the council on follow‑up items for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), highlighting recommended project funding, two near‑term budget changes and requests for more detail on project scope and condition data.

The council was told it could approve two revisions at its upcoming public hearing: $300,000 to install lighting along a section of Jordan River Parkway and removal of debt service associated with a second tranche of Park Go bonds that has not yet been approved. Staff also walked through recommended projects and allocations, including a $90,000 allotment for Jordan Parkscape (a constituent application) and matching funds for a Green Bike federal grant (roughly $60,000 for match and additional funds for infrastructure replacement).

Council members asked for additional detail in several areas before final approval. On bikeshare and bike racks, Council member Young requested a location list for replacement racks and clarification about where bike corrals would be sited so staff can evaluate overlap with other requests. Parks staff said they can supply an inventory and noted that replacements typically go in front of restaurants and pubs. On playground replacements, staff said they use an asset‑condition index (Cartograph) that ranks playgrounds by age, repairs and observed condition; council members asked staff to provide the condition spreadsheet and noted at least one playground (Curtis Park) should be included on the replacement candidate list.

Several council members raised recurring concerns about whether repeated curb or median repair applications reflect capital projects or ongoing maintenance and asked staff to clarify when CIP is the appropriate vehicle versus operating budgets. Council member Young asked for cost breakdowns (design vs. construction) for projects such as project 27 to inform future budget decisions. The transportation and parks departments agreed to follow up with more granular data on inventories and project costs.

What’s next: staff will provide requested inventories and condition data (bike racks, playground condition index), refine the CIP key changes document to reflect any motion‑sheet changes and return materials for the council’s formal public hearing and decision process.","Staff briefed the council on follow‑up items for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), including two near‑term budget changes for final approval, recommendations for specific small projects and requests for further detail on project scope and inventories (bike racks, playground conditions, traffic calming).","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council hears follow‑up on housing program funds, tenant/homeowner loan fund and NOAH preservation pilot

Council reviews proposed civil enforcement for unruly parties, shifting fines to property owners

Salt Lake City council debates step‑backs, parking and timing for mixed‑use zoning consolidation

Council reviews Capital Improvement Program follow‑up items and project priorities