Points representing municipalities, county seats, populated areas, and major junctions for cartographic purposes.

Salt Lake County Municipal Boundaries, including Cities, Metro Townships and Unincorporated areas.

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under LIR Parcels.In Spring of 2016, the Land Information Records work group, an informal committee organized by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget’s State Planning Coordinator, produced recommendations for expanding the sharing of GIS-based parcel information. Participants in the LIR work group included representatives from county, regional, and state government, including the Utah Association of Counties (County Assessors and County Recorders), Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland and Bear River AOGs, Utah League of Cities and Towns, UDOT, DNR, AGRC, the Division of Emergency Management, Blue Stakes, economic developers, and academic researchers. The LIR work group’s recommendations set the stage for voluntary sharing of additional objective/quantitative parcel GIS data, primarily around tax assessment-related information. Specifically the recommendations document establishes objectives, principles (including the role of local and state government), data content items, expected users, and a general process for data aggregation and publishing. An important realization made by the group was that ‘parcel data’ or ‘parcel record’ products have a different meaning to different users and data stewards. The LIR group focused, specifically, on defining a data sharing recommendation around a tax year parcel GIS data product, aligned with the finalization of the property tax roll by County Assessors on May 22nd of each year. The LIR recommendations do not impact the periodic sharing of basic parcel GIS data (boundary, ID, address) from the County Recorders to AGRC per 63F-1-506 (3.b.vi). Both the tax year parcel and the basic parcel GIS layers are designed for general purpose uses, and are not substitutes for researching and obtaining the most current, legal land records information on file in County records. This document, below, proposes a schedule, guidelines, and process for assembling county parcel and assessment data into an annual, statewide tax parcel GIS layer. gis.utah.gov/data/sgid-cadastre/ It is hoped that this new expanded parcel GIS layer will be put to immediate use supporting the best possible outcomes in public safety, economic development, transportation, planning, and the provision of public services. Another aim of the work group was to improve the usability of the data, through development of content guidelines and consistent metadata documentation, and the efficiency with which the data sharing is distributed.GIS Layer Boundary Geometry:GIS Format Data Files: Ideally, Tax Year Parcel data should be provided in a shapefile (please include the .shp, .shx, .dbf, .prj, and .xml component files) or file geodatabase format. An empty shapefile and file geodatabase schema are available for download at:At the request of a county, AGRC will provide technical assistance to counties to extract, transform, and load parcel and assessment information into the GIS layer format.Geographic Coverage: Tax year parcel polygons should cover the area of each county for which assessment information is created and digital parcels are available. Full coverage may not be available yet for each county. The county may provide parcels that have been adjusted to remove gaps and overlaps for administrative tax purposes or parcels that retain these expected discrepancies that take their source from the legally described boundary or the process of digital conversion. The diversity of topological approaches will be noted in the metadata.One Tax Parcel Record Per Unique Tax Notice: Some counties produce an annual tax year parcel GIS layer with one parcel polygon per tax notice. In some cases, adjacent parcel polygons that compose a single taxed property must be merged into a single polygon. This is the goal for the statewide layer but may not be possible in all counties. AGRC will provide technical support to counties, where needed, to merge GIS parcel boundaries into the best format to match with the annual assessment information.Standard Coordinate System: Parcels will be loaded into Utah’s statewide coordinate system, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates (NAD83, Zone 12 North). However, boundaries stored in other industry standard coordinate systems will be accepted if they are both defined within the data file(s) and documented in the metadata (see below).Descriptive Attributes:Database Field/Column Definitions: The table below indicates the field names and definitions for attributes requested for each Tax Parcel Polygon record.FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE LENGTH DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE SHAPE (expected) Geometry n/a The boundary of an individual parcel or merged parcels that corresponds with a single county tax notice ex. polygon boundary in UTM NAD83 Zone 12 N or other industry standard coordinates including state plane systemsCOUNTY_NAME Text 20 - County name including spaces ex. BOX ELDERCOUNTY_ID (expected) Text 2 - County ID Number ex. Beaver = 1, Box Elder = 2, Cache = 3,..., Weber = 29ASSESSOR_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Assessor in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/assessorBOUNDARY_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Recorder in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/recorderDISCLAIMER (added by State) Text 50 - Disclaimer URL ex. gis.utah.gov...CURRENT_ASOF (expected) Date - Parcels current as of date ex. 01/01/2016PARCEL_ID (expected) Text 50 - County designated Unique ID number for individual parcels ex. 15034520070000PARCEL_ADD (expected, where available) Text 100 - Parcel’s street address location. Usually the address at recordation ex. 810 S 900 E #304 (example for a condo)TAXEXEMPT_TYPE (expected) Text 100 - Primary category of granted tax exemption ex. None, Religious, Government, Agriculture, Conservation Easement, Other Open Space, OtherTAX_DISTRICT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - The coding the county uses to identify a unique combination of property tax levying entities ex. 17ATOTAL_MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - Total market value of parcel's land, structures, and other improvements as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 332000LAND _MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - The market value of the parcel's land as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 80600PARCEL_ACRES (expected) Decimal - Parcel size in acres ex. 20.360PROP_CLASS (expected) Text 100 - Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Mixed, Agricultural, Vacant, Open Space, Other ex. ResidentialPRIMARY_RES (expected) Text 1 - Is the property a primary residence(s): Y'(es), 'N'(o), or 'U'(nknown) ex. YHOUSING_CNT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - Number of housing units, can be single number or range like '5-10' ex. 1SUBDIV_NAME (optional) Text 100 - Subdivision name if applicable ex. Highland Manor SubdivisionBLDG_SQFT (expected, where applicable) Integer - Square footage of primary bldg(s) ex. 2816BLDG_SQFT_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how building square footage is counted by the County ex. Only finished above and below grade areas are counted.FLOORS_CNT (expected, where applicable) Decimal - Number of floors as reported in county records ex. 2FLOORS_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how floors are counted by the County ex. Only above grade floors are countedBUILT_YR (expected, where applicable) Short - Estimated year of initial construction of primary buildings ex. 1968EFFBUILT_YR (optional, where applicable) Short - The 'effective' year built' of primary buildings that factors in updates after construction ex. 1980CONST_MATERIAL (optional, where applicable) Text 100 - Construction Material Types, Values for this field are expected to vary greatly by county ex. Wood Frame, Brick, etc Contact: Sean Fernandez, Cadastral Manager (email: sfernandez@utah.gov; office phone: 801-209-9359)

The Address Points dataset shows Utah address points for all twenty-nine Utah counties. An address point represents a geographic location that has been assigned a US Postal Service (USPS) address by the local address authority (i.e., county or municipality) but does not necessarily receive mail. Address points may include several pieces of information about the structure or location that’s being mapped, such as:the full address (i.e., the USPS mailing address, if the address is for a physical location [rather than a PO box]);the landmark name; whether the location is a building;the type of unit;the city and ZIP code; unique code identifiers of the specific geographic location, including the Federal Information Processing Standard Publication (FIPS) county code and the US National Grid (USNG) spatial address;the address source; andthe date that the address point was loaded into the map layer.This dataset is mapping grade; it is a framework layer that receives regular updates. As with all our datasets, the Utah Geospatial Resource Center (UGRC) works to ensure the quality and accuracy of our data to the best of our abilities. Maintaining the dataset is now an ongoing effort between UGRC, counties, and municipalities. Specifically, UGRC works with each county or municipality’s Master Address List (MAL) authority to continually improve the address point data. Counties have been placed on an update schedule depending on the rate of new development and change within them. Populous counties, such as Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and Washington, are more complete and are updated monthly, while rural or less populous counties may be updated quarterly or every six months.The information in the Address Points dataset was originally compiled by Utah counties and municipalities and was aggregated by UGRC for the MAL grant initiative in 2012. The purpose of this initiative was to make sure that all state entities were using the same verified, accurate county and municipal address information. Since 2012, more data has been added to the Address Points GIS data and is used for geocoding, 911 response, and analysis and planning purposes. The Address Point data is also used as reference data for the api.mapserv.utah.gov geocoding endpoint, and you can find the address points in many web mapping applications. This dataset is updated monthly and can also be found at: https://gis.utah.gov/data/location/address-data/.

The LEHD Origin Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) dataset is updated annually by the Census Bureau in partnership with the IRS.The LODES dataset provides information on the location and characteristics of every job in the United States that is covered by unemployment insurance.The data shown in for the year 2019, the most current year at the time this map was produced.Layers KeyNumber: Number of PeoplePercent Selected Area: Share of each area (city/township)Percent Map Unit: Share within each map unit (city, small district, tract, block group) as declared in layer nameColumn descriptions: [CODE3]_h: Home Location of those who work in [Map Unit][CODE3]_w: Work Location of those who live in [Map Unit]City/Township Codes are as follows:SHORTDESCCODE3AMERICAN FORKAFKALTAALAALPINEALPBLUFFDALEBDLBRIGHAM CITYBGMBOUNTIFULBNTBRIGHTONBRTCEDAR FORTCDFCENTERVILLECENCHARLESTONCHACEDAR HILLSCHLCLEARFIELDCLFCLINTONCLICOPPERTON METRO TOWNSHIPCMTCOALVILLECOACOTTONWOOD HEIGHTSCWHDANIELDANDRAPER CITYDRAEAGLE MOUNTAINEAGELK RIDGEELKEMIGRATION CANYON METRO TOWNSHIPEMTFARMINGTONFARFRANCISFCSFAIRFIELDFFDFARR WEST CITYFRRFRUIT HEIGHTSFTHGENOLAGLAGOSHENGOSGRANTSVILLEGRLHARRISVILLEHARHIDEOUT (SUMMIT)HDTHIDEOUT (WASATCH)HDTHEBER CITYHEBHERRIMAN TOWNHERHIGHLANDHGHHENEFERHNFCITY OF HOLLADAYHOLHOOPERHOOHUNTSVILLEHVLINDEPENDENCEINDINTERLAKEN TOWNINTKAYSVILLEKAYKAMASKMSKEARNS METRO TOWNSHIPKMTLAYTONLAYLEHILEHLINDONLINMAPLETONMAPMIDVALEMIDMILLCREEKMLCMAGNA METRO TOWNSHIPMMTMORGANMRGMARRIOTT-SLATERVILLE CITYMSLMURRAYMURMIDWAYMWYNORTH OGDEN CITYNOGCITY OF NORTH SALT LAKENSLOGDEN CITYOGDOAKLEYOKLOREMORMPAYSONPAYPLEASANT GROVEPGRPLAIN CITYPLNPARK CITYPRKPERRY CITYPRYPROVOPVOPLEASANT VIEWPVWROY CITYROYRIVERDALERVDRIVERTONRVTSANDY CITYSANSANTAQUIN CITY (UTAH CO)SAQSARATOGA SPRINGSSARSPANISH FORKSFKSOUTH JORDANSJCSALT LAKE CITYSLCSALEMSLMSOUTH OGDENSOGSPRINGVILLESPVSOUTH SALT LAKE CITYSSLSUNSETSUNSOUTH WEBERSWESYRACUSESYRTAYLORSVILLE CITYTAYTOOELETOOUINTAHUINVINEYARDVINWASHINGTON TERRACEWATWALLSBURGWBGWOODLAND HILLSWDLWEST BOUNTIFULWEBWHITE CITY METRO TOWNSHIPWHTWEST HAVENWHVWILLARD CITYWILWEST JORDAN CITYWJCWEST POINTWPTWEST VALLEY CITYWVCWOODS CROSS CITYWXC

Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under LIR Parcels.In Spring of 2016, the Land Information Records work group, an informal committee organized by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget’s State Planning Coordinator, produced recommendations for expanding the sharing of GIS-based parcel information. Participants in the LIR work group included representatives from county, regional, and state government, including the Utah Association of Counties (County Assessors and County Recorders), Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland and Bear River AOGs, Utah League of Cities and Towns, UDOT, DNR, AGRC, the Division of Emergency Management, Blue Stakes, economic developers, and academic researchers. The LIR work group’s recommendations set the stage for voluntary sharing of additional objective/quantitative parcel GIS data, primarily around tax assessment-related information. Specifically the recommendations document establishes objectives, principles (including the role of local and state government), data content items, expected users, and a general process for data aggregation and publishing. An important realization made by the group was that ‘parcel data’ or ‘parcel record’ products have a different meaning to different users and data stewards. The LIR group focused, specifically, on defining a data sharing recommendation around a tax year parcel GIS data product, aligned with the finalization of the property tax roll by County Assessors on May 22nd of each year. The LIR recommendations do not impact the periodic sharing of basic parcel GIS data (boundary, ID, address) from the County Recorders to AGRC per 63F-1-506 (3.b.vi). Both the tax year parcel and the basic parcel GIS layers are designed for general purpose uses, and are not substitutes for researching and obtaining the most current, legal land records information on file in County records. This document, below, proposes a schedule, guidelines, and process for assembling county parcel and assessment data into an annual, statewide tax parcel GIS layer. gis.utah.gov/data/sgid-cadastre/It is hoped that this new expanded parcel GIS layer will be put to immediate use supporting the best possible outcomes in public safety, economic development, transportation, planning, and the provision of public services. Another aim of the work group was to improve the usability of the data, through development of content guidelines and consistent metadata documentation, and the efficiency with which the data sharing is distributed.GIS Layer Boundary Geometry:GIS Format Data Files: Ideally, Tax Year Parcel data should be provided in a shapefile (please include the .shp, .shx, .dbf, .prj, and .xml component files) or file geodatabase format. An empty shapefile and file geodatabase schema are available for download at:At the request of a county, AGRC will provide technical assistance to counties to extract, transform, and load parcel and assessment information into the GIS layer format.Data Processing: Tax roll provided by the county has multiple records for each unique parcel record as many of the parcels have multiple uses. As a result many of the parcel records are duplicated.Geographic Coverage: Tax year parcel polygons should cover the area of each county for which assessment information is created and digital parcels are available. Full coverage may not be available yet for each county. The county may provide parcels that have been adjusted to remove gaps and overlaps for administrative tax purposes or parcels that retain these expected discrepancies that take their source from the legally described boundary or the process of digital conversion. The diversity of topological approaches will be noted in the metadata.One Tax Parcel Record Per Unique Tax Notice: Some counties produce an annual tax year parcel GIS layer with one parcel polygon per tax notice. In some cases, adjacent parcel polygons that compose a single taxed property must be merged into a single polygon. This is the goal for the statewide layer but may not be possible in all counties. AGRC will provide technical support to counties, where needed, to merge GIS parcel boundaries into the best format to match with the annual assessment information.Standard Coordinate System: Parcels will be loaded into Utah’s statewide coordinate system, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates (NAD83, Zone 12 North). However, boundaries stored in other industry standard coordinate systems will be accepted if they are both defined within the data file(s) and documented in the metadata (see below).Descriptive Attributes:Database Field/Column Definitions: The table below indicates the field names and definitions for attributes requested for each Tax Parcel Polygon record.FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE LENGTH DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE SHAPE (expected) Geometry n/a The boundary of an individual parcel or merged parcels that corresponds with a single county tax notice ex. polygon boundary in UTM NAD83 Zone 12 N or other industry standard coordinates including state plane systemsCOUNTY_NAME Text 20 - County name including spaces ex. BOX ELDERCOUNTY_ID (expected) Text 2 - County ID Number ex. Beaver = 1, Box Elder = 2, Cache = 3,..., Weber = 29ASSESSOR_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Assessor in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/assessorBOUNDARY_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Recorder in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/recorderDISCLAIMER (added by State) Text 50 - Disclaimer URL ex. gis.utah.gov...CURRENT_ASOF (expected) Date - Parcels current as of date ex. 01/01/2016PARCEL_ID (expected) Text 50 - County designated Unique ID number for individual parcels ex. 15034520070000PARCEL_ADD (expected, where available) Text 100 - Parcel’s street address location. Usually the address at recordation ex. 810 S 900 E #304 (example for a condo)TAXEXEMPT_TYPE (expected) Text 100 - Primary category of granted tax exemption ex. None, Religious, Government, Agriculture, Conservation Easement, Other Open Space, OtherTAX_DISTRICT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - The coding the county uses to identify a unique combination of property tax levying entities ex. 17ATOTAL_MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - Total market value of parcel's land, structures, and other improvements as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 332000LAND _MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - The market value of the parcel's land as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 80600PARCEL_ACRES (expected) Decimal - Parcel size in acres ex. 20.360PROP_CLASS (expected) Text 100 - Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Mixed, Agricultural, Vacant, Open Space, Other ex. ResidentialPRIMARY_RES (expected) Text 1 - Is the property a primary residence(s): Y'(es), 'N'(o), or 'U'(nknown) ex. YHOUSING_CNT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - Number of housing units, can be single number or range like '5-10' ex. 1SUBDIV_NAME (optional) Text 100 - Subdivision name if applicable ex. Highland Manor SubdivisionBLDG_SQFT (expected, where applicable) Integer - Square footage of primary bldg(s) ex. 2816BLDG_SQFT_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how building square footage is counted by the County ex. Only finished above and below grade areas are counted.FLOORS_CNT (expected, where applicable) Decimal - Number of floors as reported in county records ex. 2FLOORS_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how floors are counted by the County ex. Only above grade floors are countedBUILT_YR (expected, where applicable) Short - Estimated year of initial construction of primary buildings ex. 1968EFFBUILT_YR (optional, where applicable) Short - The 'effective' year built' of primary buildings that factors in updates after construction ex. 1980CONST_MATERIAL (optional, where applicable) Text 100 - Construction Material Types, Values for this field are expected to vary greatly by county ex. Wood Frame, Brick, etc Contact: Sean Fernandez, Cadastral Manager (email: sfernandez@utah.gov; office phone: 801-209-9359)

The State of Utah, including the Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, Utah Geological Survey, and the Utah Division of Emergency Management, along with local and federal partners, including Salt Lake County and local cities, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have funded and collected over 8380 km² (3236 mi²) of high-resolution (0.5 or 1 meter) Lidar data across the state since 2011, in support of a diverse set of flood mapping, geologic, transportation, infrastructure, solar energy, and vegetation projects. The datasets include point cloud, first return digital surface model (DSM), and bare-earth digital terrain/elevation model (DEM) data, along with appropriate metadata (XML, project tile indexes, and area completion reports).

This 0.5-meter 2013-2014 Wasatch Front dataset includes most of the Salt Lake and Utah Valleys (Utah), and the Wasatch (Utah and Idaho), and West Valley fault zones (Utah).

Other recently acquired State of Utah data include the 2011 Utah Geological Survey Lidar dataset covering Cedar and Parowan Valleys, the east shore/wetlands of Great Salt Lake, the Hurricane fault zone, the west half of Ogden Valley, North Ogden, and part of the Wasatch Plateau in Utah.

The 2023 cartographic boundary KMLs are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. The cartographic boundary files include both incorporated places (legal entities) and census designated places or CDPs (statistical entities). An incorporated place is established to provide governmental functions for a concentration of people as opposed to a minor civil division (MCD), which generally is created to provide services or administer an area without regard, necessarily, to population. Places always nest within a state, but may extend across county and county subdivision boundaries. An incorporated place usually is a city, town, village, or borough, but can have other legal descriptions. CDPs are delineated for the decennial census as the statistical counterparts of incorporated places. CDPs are delineated to provide data for settled concentrations of population that are identifiable by name, but are not legally incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located. The boundaries for CDPs often are defined in partnership with state, local, and/or tribal officials and usually coincide with visible features or the boundary of an adjacent incorporated place or another legal entity. CDP boundaries often change from one decennial census to the next with changes in the settlement pattern and development; a CDP with the same name as in an earlier census does not necessarily have the same boundary. The only population/housing size requirement for CDPs is that they must contain some housing and population. The generalized boundaries of most incorporated places in this file are based on those as of January 1, 2023, as reported through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS). The generalized boundaries of all CDPs are based on those delineated or updated as part of the the 2023 BAS or the Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) for the 2020 Census.

The 2015 cartographic boundary KMLs are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. The records in this file allow users to map the parts of Urban Areas that overlap a particular county. After each decennial census, the Census Bureau delineates urban areas that represent densely developed territory, encompassing residential, commercial, and other nonresidential urban land uses. In general, this territory consists of areas of high population density and urban land use resulting in a representation of the "urban footprint." There are two types of urban areas: urbanized areas (UAs) that contain 50,000 or more people and urban clusters (UCs) that contain at least 2,500 people, but fewer than 50,000 people (except in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam which each contain urban clusters with populations greater than 50,000). Each urban area is identified by a 5-character numeric census code that may contain leading zeroes. The primary legal divisions of most states are termed counties. In Louisiana, these divisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, which has no counties, the equivalent entities are the organized boroughs, city and boroughs, municipalities, and for the unorganized area, census areas. The latter are delineated cooperatively for statistical purposes by the State of Alaska and the Census Bureau. In four states (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia), there are one or more incorporated places that are independent of any county organization and thus constitute primary divisions of their states. These incorporated places are known as independent cities and are treated as equivalent entities for purposes of data presentation. The District of Columbia and Guam have no primary divisions, and each area is considered an equivalent entity for purposes of data presentation. The Census Bureau treats the following entities as equivalents of counties for purposes of data presentation: Municipios in Puerto Rico, Districts and Islands in American Samoa, Municipalities in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The entire area of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas is covered by counties or equivalent entities. The boundaries for counties and equivalent entities are as of January 1, 2010.

The 2019 cartographic boundary KMLs are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. The records in this file allow users to map the parts of Urban Areas that overlap a particular county. After each decennial census, the Census Bureau delineates urban areas that represent densely developed territory, encompassing residential, commercial, and other nonresidential urban land uses. In general, this territory consists of areas of high population density and urban land use resulting in a representation of the ""urban footprint."" There are two types of urban areas: urbanized areas (UAs) that contain 50,000 or more people and urban clusters (UCs) that contain at least 2,500 people, but fewer than 50,000 people (except in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam which each contain urban clusters with populations greater than 50,000). Each urban area is identified by a 5-character numeric census code that may contain leading zeroes. The primary legal divisions of most states are termed counties. In Louisiana, these divisions are known as parishes. In Alaska, which has no counties, the equivalent entities are the organized boroughs, city and boroughs, municipalities, and for the unorganized area, census areas. The latter are delineated cooperatively for statistical purposes by the State of Alaska and the Census Bureau. In four states (Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia), there are one or more incorporated places that are independent of any county organization and thus constitute primary divisions of their states. These incorporated places are known as independent cities and are treated as equivalent entities for purposes of data presentation. The District of Columbia and Guam have no primary divisions, and each area is considered an equivalent entity for purposes of data presentation. The Census Bureau treats the following entities as equivalents of counties for purposes of data presentation: Municipios in Puerto Rico, Districts and Islands in American Samoa, Municipalities in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The entire area of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas is covered by counties or equivalent entities. The generalized boundaries for counties and equivalent entities are as of January 1, 2010.

This dataset represents the regionally significant centers and land use in the Wasatch Choice 2050 Vision Map.Land use types in this dataset include four levels of centers (metropolitan, urban, city, neighborhood), employment districts, education districts, industrial districts, and special districts (airports, mining, military, etc.).Areas covered by the Wasatch Front Regional Council MPO, Tooele Valley RPO, and Morgan County - Ogden Valley RPO were created and reviewed by their constituent cities and stakeholders. Areas covered by Utah County, Summit County, and Wasatch County were created by Mountainland Association of Governments staff based on general feedback from their constituent cities and stakeholders.

These data were created for planimetric display and tax area analysis.Procedures_Used:The principal method of data entry used coordinate geometry software.Digitizing from paper maps and use of digital planimetric data were supplemental. Conversions, filling of gaps, georeferencing, reconciliations, and reformatting were often necessary to create a coherent database. Boundary updates are occasionally accepted from local GIS departments when the USTC has not received all relevant boundary change information through required channels. Updates have been made in this manner to Sandy, some Cache, Washington, Utah, Wasatch, and Carbon County cities.Revisions: Municipal boundaries are revised as documents are filed with the Lt. Governor's Office.Reviews_Applied_to_Data:Digital sources were visually compared with planimetric data. Digitized data were overlaid with source material and visually compared. Technical errors were also identified and corrected with ArcGIS Software.Notes: This metadata document contains a composite of information for alltiles in the library.Current thru April 29, 2015

This map should be used by UDOT and Utah municipalities to determine their eligibility for a Transit Innovations Grant. Eligible counties include Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Summit, Tooele, Utah, and Weber.This map contains municipal boundaries throughout the state of Utah, these boundaries were compiled from URGC, and more information can be found at https://gis.utah.gov/products/sgid/boundaries/municipal/. Population data was compiled from multiple sources. Population data from 2013 to 2022 was collected from the U.S. Census using the 2013 5-Year ACS and 2022 5-Year ACS for both place and county level populations. Population Data from 2023-2032 was collected from the WFRC 2023 RTP city area population projections. More information about the WFRC population projections can be found at https://data.wfrc.org/datasets/wfrc::population-projections-city-area-rtp-2023/about. County boundaries from UGRC are also included in this map for ease of identification. Municipal and county percent population change was calculated in the same manner for both time frames. The earlier year population was subtracted from the latter year and divided by the latter year. The percent change for the municipality was then compared its county. Municipalities were identified as growing faster than the county from 2013-2022, from 2023-2032, or both time periods.This map is a work in progress and not yet ready for public release.For questions regarding this information please contact Ryan Hunter at r.hunter@fehrandpeers.com

The LEHD Origin Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) dataset is updated annually by the Census Bureau in partnership with the IRS.The LODES dataset provides information on the location and characteristics of every job in the United States that is covered by unemployment insurance.The data shown in for the year 2019, the most current year at the time this map was produced.Layers KeyNumber: Number of PeoplePercent Selected Area: Share of each area (city/township)Percent Map Unit: Share within each map unit (city, small district, tract, block group) as declared in layer nameColumn descriptions: [CODE3]_h: Home Location of those who work in [Map Unit][CODE3]_w: Work Location of those who live in [Map Unit]City/Township Codes are as follows:SHORTDESCCODE3AMERICAN FORKAFKALTAALAALPINEALPBLUFFDALEBDLBRIGHAM CITYBGMBOUNTIFULBNTBRIGHTONBRTCEDAR FORTCDFCENTERVILLECENCHARLESTONCHACEDAR HILLSCHLCLEARFIELDCLFCLINTONCLICOPPERTON METRO TOWNSHIPCMTCOALVILLECOACOTTONWOOD HEIGHTSCWHDANIELDANDRAPER CITYDRAEAGLE MOUNTAINEAGELK RIDGEELKEMIGRATION CANYON METRO TOWNSHIPEMTFARMINGTONFARFRANCISFCSFAIRFIELDFFDFARR WEST CITYFRRFRUIT HEIGHTSFTHGENOLAGLAGOSHENGOSGRANTSVILLEGRLHARRISVILLEHARHIDEOUT (SUMMIT)HDTHIDEOUT (WASATCH)HDTHEBER CITYHEBHERRIMAN TOWNHERHIGHLANDHGHHENEFERHNFCITY OF HOLLADAYHOLHOOPERHOOHUNTSVILLEHVLINDEPENDENCEINDINTERLAKEN TOWNINTKAYSVILLEKAYKAMASKMSKEARNS METRO TOWNSHIPKMTLAYTONLAYLEHILEHLINDONLINMAPLETONMAPMIDVALEMIDMILLCREEKMLCMAGNA METRO TOWNSHIPMMTMORGANMRGMARRIOTT-SLATERVILLE CITYMSLMURRAYMURMIDWAYMWYNORTH OGDEN CITYNOGCITY OF NORTH SALT LAKENSLOGDEN CITYOGDOAKLEYOKLOREMORMPAYSONPAYPLEASANT GROVEPGRPLAIN CITYPLNPARK CITYPRKPERRY CITYPRYPROVOPVOPLEASANT VIEWPVWROY CITYROYRIVERDALERVDRIVERTONRVTSANDY CITYSANSANTAQUIN CITY (UTAH CO)SAQSARATOGA SPRINGSSARSPANISH FORKSFKSOUTH JORDANSJCSALT LAKE CITYSLCSALEMSLMSOUTH OGDENSOGSPRINGVILLESPVSOUTH SALT LAKE CITYSSLSUNSETSUNSOUTH WEBERSWESYRACUSESYRTAYLORSVILLE CITYTAYTOOELETOOUINTAHUINVINEYARDVINWASHINGTON TERRACEWATWALLSBURGWBGWOODLAND HILLSWDLWEST BOUNTIFULWEBWHITE CITY METRO TOWNSHIPWHTWEST HAVENWHVWILLARD CITYWILWEST JORDAN CITYWJCWEST POINTWPTWEST VALLEY CITYWVCWOODS CROSS CITYWXC

Boundaries.Municipalities is a multi-purpose statewide dataset of municipal boundaries for cartography and approximate boundary identification. Boundaries.Municipalities boundaries are maintained by AGRC with the help of many state, county, and local entities. Changes and updates are through certification by the Lt. Governor’s Office sent in by City and County Recorders offices. Boundary updates are occasionally accepted from local GIS departments when older (pre 2007) relevant boundary change information was not received through required channels. All features are adjusted to the current Geographic Coordinate Database (GCDB) points. Data developed with coordinate geometry (COGO) from legal descriptions were used. When necessary the data was adjusted to conform to known physical features. This dataset does not represent exact legal boundaries, but, rather a set of boundaries used for the administrative purposes that conforms to logical and administrative rules (e.g. no two cities or redevelopment areas may cover the same geographic extent). Two new cities in Tooele County have been added, Erda and Lake Point. Data is current thru June 30, 2023, data is updated through out the year as changes are made (Annexations). Population Estimates are from July 1, 2022.More information can be found on the UGRC data page for this layer:https://gis.utah.gov/data/boundaries/citycountystate/

Subdivision boundaries in Salt Lake County maintained by the Salt Lake County Surveyor's Office.

This map layer will depict the groomed cross country ski trails available at commercial and public venues in Utah.

The map layer is currently incomplete and includes trails from Mountain Dell golf course and Soldier Hollow, digitized from aerial photography in 2007. Trail features carry the trail name, the XC ski area they are within, and the length in meters.

Trails are missing from: Brian Head, Eden Valley North Fork, Jeremy Ranch Park City Basin Rec/Round Valley, Park City White Pine, Snowbasin, and Sundance. Trails will be added by AGRC as received, or as staff time allows.

This map shows the locations of canals and paved trails in relation to on-road cycling comfort levels. The canal data was obtained from the Utah AGRC, and the bike and trail data was obtained by Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. This map is static; there is no update schedule. For more information, please contact Jordan Backman (jbackman@utah.gov).

This dataset represents the Flood Plain Management Services Study (FPMS) ares, 100-Year Flood for the Great Salt Lake. The area included Salt Lake City, Davis, Weber, tooele and box elder County The information was collected by digitzing the quad maps (Salt Lake, Tooele, boxelder county) and plat maps (weber and Davis county). The digital data contain the zone boundary and shoreline boundary. The FPMS study was limited to the general area along the Salt Lake County shoreline of the Great Salt Lake Only the 100-year flood elevation was evaluated and included wind and wave action for the Great Salt Lake. This dataset is the most current digital information available.