City Council Announcements
January 18, 2000
A. Decisions, Feedback & Information needed by staff
1. LETTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL CHAIR:
a) Attached is a letter to Mayor Anderson. The purpose of this letter is to bring his attention to the three Olympic Town Meetings scheduled in January and February 2000. Does the Council approve the letter?
b) Attached is a letter to J. David Warnock thanking him for the painting that now hangs in the Council’s Committee Room. Does the Council approve the letter?
c) Attached is a letter of appreciation for Tony Ausseresses and the Information Management Services Division for assistance relating to the audiovisual aspects of the induction ceremony. Does the Council approve the letter?
d) Attached is a letter of appreciation to Linda Hamilton for serving on the Metropolitan Water District. Does the Council approve the letter?
e) Attached is a letter to the Utah League of Cities and Towns formally acknowledging Council Member Nancy Saxton’s appointment to the League’s Legislative Policy Committee. Does the Council approve the letter?
A: All Council Members approved the letters.
2. BUDGET: Occasionally, the Administration will request that the Council consider "pre-approving" an item with budgetary impact when that item is deemed to have circumstances that keep it from being processed in the next regularly scheduled budget amendment. The Administration has forwarded two items for the Council's consideration prior to the February budget amendment (attached). If the Council approves these items, the Administration will take the action indicated immediately and formally process the items in the February budget amendment.
a) The Administration has requested that the Council consider increasing the staffing document by 1.0 FTE (full-time equivalents) and increasing the CED personal services budget by approximately $58,100 in order to fund one temporary, appointed, at-will, Light Rail Administrator position. The interlocal agreement between the City and UTA for the University Light Rail Transit Project, which was approved by the Council on December 14, 1999 specified that the salary, benefits and related costs for two such positions would be reimbursed by UTA, and that these positions would serve as the principal contact on the City's behalf for UTA with respect to the design and construction of the light rail line. Both positions will only be funded through the completion of the project. The Administration would like to hire one of these two positions as soon as possible as the project is underway, rather than waiting until formal approval can be considered in the February budget amendment. The Council may wish to note that the interlocal approved on December 14 did not specify the maximum amount or length of time that UTA would reimburse these expenditures. CED is working with UTA to draft an amendment to the December 14 interlocal which clarifies these guidelines, and indicated that Mike Allegra with UTA has given informal approval of the estimated expenditures. The amendment to the interlocal will be prepared in time for the February budget amendment
A: The Council wanted to see if UTA would fund this item.
As a matter of policy, the Council does not usually approve budgetary items without final interlocal agreements, as such action decreases the Council's ability to exercise oversight control. However, as actual funding will not be approved without the Council's final consent during the February budget amendment, and the position is temporary and can be terminated if funds are not available, the Council may wish to consider this request.
b) The Administration has indicated that the janitorial services contract for the Public Safety Building will be renegotiated before the February budget amendment. It is anticipated that the amount that was budgeted for this contract will need to be increased $30,000 - $40,000 in order to meet the desired service level. The Administration proposed that this be funded with General Fund contingency.
A: No Council Members were in favor.
3. COG Meeting (Jan. 6, 2000): Council Member Thompson attended the January 6, 2000 meeting of the Salt Lake Council of Governments (COG) as the Salt Lake City Council representative. Two items on the agenda were of specific interest:
a) Salt Lake County is considering a proposal to create a paramedic service district (i.e. special taxing district) for all cities and unincorporated areas within Salt Lake County excluding Salt Lake City (Salt Lake City has a separate State license to provide EMS services). Such a district would allow the County to remove EMS services from the General Fund, and more accurately identify the rate that each city or area is being assessed for such services. The district would also eliminate the current double taxation that occurs as Salt Lake City residents are charged for paramedic services by the County and the City, when only the City actually provides the service. The County is encouraging Salt Lake City to consider consolidating its paramedic service with the County. The Salt Lake City Fire Department has indicated that it is not in favor of such a consolidation, as the Department believes that service levels for City residents would decline. However, the Department has indicated that it continues to look for a solution to the double taxation issue facing City residents with respect to paramedic service delivery. The Council may wish to request additional information on this item (i.e. "What would the effect of such a change/consolidation be on Salt Lake City?”) Would the Council like a briefing on this item?
A: The Council wanted to wait until later for a briefing.
b) The County has recently joined with Valley Emergency Communications Center (VECC) which is a dispatch record keeping system. Commissioner Shurtleff indicated at the COG meeting that he would like to see Salt Lake City join with VECC. The Salt Lake City Fire Department has explored this opportunity and would prefer not to join this system for several reasons, including the fact that the VECC system is not accredited, while Salt Lake City's dispatch system is, as well as other issues related to the City's involvement in the 800 megahertz Utah Communication Area Network (UCAN) system. Would the Council like additional information or a briefing on this item?
A: The Council wanted to wait until later for a briefing.
4. PROPERTY CONVEYANCE:
Lambs Canyon- Attached is information on the proposed land exchange in Summit County adjacent to the top of Lambs Canyon. The trade will be between the City and JLS Group, L.L.C. Both properties are within Lambs Canyon drainage. The properties are of similar size and topography. This acquisition will allow the City to have more control of the watershed. The terms of the deed from the City will require the property not to be developed. Passive recreational activities will be allowed. The Public Utilities Advisory Council has reviewed and approved this property exchange. Does the Council wish to hold a hearing?
A: The Council did not wish to hold a hearing.
5. METHODS OF CONTACT: Attached are three forms to be verified and approved by Council Members. Once approved, staff will distribute them as needed. The fourth form is staff contact information for Council Members to use until a laminated copy is made. Please notify Missy of any changes by Wednesday, January 19.
B. Council Office Policies
C. For Your Information
1. CITY HOLIDAY (reminder): On Monday, January 17 the City Council Office will be closed in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. / Human Rights Day.
2. POLICE 4/10 WORK WEEK FOR PATROL OFFICERS – In July 1999, the City Administration changed Police Department patrol shifts from 10-hour shifts to 8-hour shifts, as recommended in an independent audit of the Police Department commissioned by the City Council. Mayor Anderson and Interim Police Chief Connole have explored the possibility of having police patrol officers return to 10-hour shifts.
The rationale for the auditor’s recommendation was that the analysis indicated there was an imbalance between patrol staffing and workload in the patrol divisions. The auditor estimated that under the 4/10 work schedule, 34 additional officers would be needed to eliminate the call for service workload imbalance. The auditor’s analysis indicated that implementation of a 5/8 scheduling plan would enable the Police Department to better deploy officers consistent with workload.
Attached are two memos from Chief Mac Connole and one memo from Police Association President David Greer written to Mayor Anderson proposing a new system for maintaining a 4/10 patrol officer work week. The memos report the following:
Impacts of the 5/8 implementation including lowered officer morale.
Additional information and alternatives related to audit findings.
The development of a new 4/10 system utilizing changes to operation strategies and technology that would reportedly maximize patrol officer efficiency.
3. CAD/RMS UPDATE: Attached is the quarterly CAD/RMS system update. This is submitted in respose to a legislative Intent Statement adopted by the Council June 1999.
4. MEETING SUMMARY: Staff has enclosed a summary of the January 10 meeting of the Utah League of Cities & Towns Legislative Policy Committee.
5. PUBLIC SERVICES: During the October 1999 Landfill Management Council Meeting, two items were discussed that may be of interest to City Council Members.
a) Findings from a limited scope audit of the Landfill conducted by the County Auditor's Office were released. While the Landfill was commended for having 97% of its open accounts current, the audit raised three issues that needed to be addressed by the Landfill.
Many customers with open charge accounts did not have an adequate size payment bond on file, as required by County ordinance. The Landfill has since initiated a process to monitor bond requirements, and 20 out of 23 account holders have since increased their bond amounts.
Scalehouse operators at the Landfill were not recording forms of payment properly, which increases the risk that funds might be mishandled. The Landfill has taken steps to rectify this problem, without causing increased delay across the scales.
The Landfill was not correctly recording controlled assets, but has sought clarification on the County's policies and has since corrected their practice.
The Administration believes that these issues are being handled appropriately and responsibly by the Landfill management, but will continue to monitor updates to the audit and provide information to Council staff.
b) It was reported in the October meeting that the pilot program begun by Salt Lake City in 1998 to use biodegradable bags for the leaf pickup program was not successful. Residents were using both biodegradable bags and regular plastic garbage bags, requiring Landfill staff and volunteers to separate the bags for processing. A lack of volunteers resulted in many of the biodegradable bags being sent to the Landfill anyway. In addition, the biodegradable bags were not degrading fast enough, which resulted in pieces of the bags throughout the mulch that was purchased by County residents for landscaping purposes.
Therefore, while the Administration has indicated its intent to continue to explore possibilities for more efficient recycling opportunities within the leaf pick up program, the biodegradable bag program has been discontinued for the time being. This should result in a decrease in the Refuse Fund's FY01 budget, as non-degradable bags are less expensive than biodegradable bags (approximately $0.13 versus $0.19 per bag). Please let Anne know if you would be interested in additional information on either of these items.
Impact Fee Subcommittee
Tuesday, January 18 @ 4 p.m.