2002 Council Announcements

June 18, 2002


City Council Announcements

June 18, 2002



A. Decisions, Feedback & Information needed by staff


A.    1. Staff Process for Addressing Constituent Concerns

Currently, there is some duplication of efforts between our office and the Mayor's Office of Community Affairs, in the way that we process constituents’ concerns.  The previous Administration had been concerned that our staff and the Council Members were instructing the administrative staff. Council Staff has checked with the current Administration, and they do not share the same concern. Therefore, we are able to eliminate the duplication.



Council staff will directly contact departments and outside entities (health department, state agencies, community organizations) with constituents’ issues and concerns, and will respond to the constituents in the manner preferred by each Council Member (telephone, letter, etc.).


We will keep Community Affairs informed of the complaints we are working on and they will keep us informed of those that come to their office so that we can coordinate and not double up on the same issues.


Periodically, as the Mayor's staff has gotten busy with their other assignments, we have needed to follow-up on the constituents’ concerns. Where this new process may be a bit of additional work for us, it will allow us to monitor resolutions of constituents’ complaints, and should allow us to respond back to constituents more rapidly. 


Our staff will need to be trained on a new tracking system that the Administrative Departments currently do not use. Therefore, we will be responsible for entering the information they provide to us so that we have comprehensive records based on the address of each complaint.  We currently have a good tracking system, but it is not possible for it to be used as a common system between our office and community affairs. This new tracking system does have the capability to be shared between departments, and would be available as a ‘next step’.

Do Council Members have any objection to trying this out for six months?  No objections.


2. INFORMATION ON UTOPIA  Attached is a brief description of UTOPIA, which is a consortium of cities that are studying the feasibility of cities building and owning fiber connections to every home and business in the respective cities.  Under the proposal, cities would issue revenue bonds to construct a fiber-optic system and to sell access to the system (providers of voice, video, and high-speed internet services).  UTOPIA is an acronym for Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency.  Paul Morris, West Valley City’s attorney, is UTOPIA’s chairman.  According to Mr. Morris, cities that have fiber optic access may have a technological advantage over those that do not when trying to lure commercial interests.  The cost to join UTOPIA is 15 cents per resident (about $26,000 for Salt Lake City).  The feasibility study may require an additional assessment to member cities.  The study will include determining whether providers of telecommunication services (including cable TV and internet access) support the concept.  There is an open house on June 24 in Lindon that will highlight the services that could be provided over such an infrastructure.  The open house will include a tour of the facility that houses Lindon’s components of the system.  Is the Council interested in the June 24 event or in gaining additional information on UTOPIA?  No


2. Nuclear Waste Repository Resolution Council staff has attached a draft of a resolution addressing the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. The draft is in response to a direction from the Chair and Vice Chair to prepare a resolution shorter than an earlier draft resolution submitted to the Council for consideration. The Chair and Vice Chair also said they wanted a resolution that leaned more toward facts about the proposed repository and the repository's potential effects on Salt Lake City. The draft cites publications where language differs from the earlier draft resolution submitted for Council consideration or where new language has been added. The draft's final two paragraphs widen the scope of who potentially would receive the final resolution because in Council staff research indicates that Colorado is debating whether to support the Yucca Mountain site, and a great deal of the nuclear waste Yucca Mountain might hold will come from the Hanford area in Washington, an area near Portland, and the INEEL site near Idaho Falls. According to some maps, nuclear waste could be transported up the Columbia River Gorge, and from Hanford, through eastern Oregon, Boise, and down Interstate 84 where it intersects I-15.  Does the Council wish to support a resolution and have it placed on the Agenda?  Council Members were concerned about the accuracy of the number of trips per week.  Councilmember Saxton suggested the Council agree to the resolution in principal and get back to the staff with any changes or concerns.  Councilmember Buhler said Council Members could send their comments and suggestions to Mr. Weeks with the idea this would be sent out to the Council prior to the July 2nd meeting.  He said it could be scheduled for adoption on July 2nd.  Mr. Weeks asked if it would be a joint resolution with the Mayor.  Councilmember Buhler said the Mayor’s Office should be contacted about making a joint resolution. 


B. Council Office Policies


C. For Your Information


D. Meetings