Additional City Council Announcements
March 13, 2007
A. Information Needed by Staff
1. Two bond issues rather than one: Originally, the City considered issuing one bond issue for the Fleet Facility, TRAX Extension and westside railroad realignment (Grant Tower) projects. Funds for construction of the Fleet Facility will not be needed until spring of 2008 while the payments of project costs for TRAX Extension and Grant Tower will begin in July 2007. Under federal tax law, there is a reasonable expectation that bond proceeds for construction purposes will be spent within two years from receipt of proceeds and according to certain spend down requirements. The Fleet Facility project would not be able to meet these spend down requirements with a July 2007 issue date. The Administration contemplated advancing funds for the TRAX extension and railroad realignment projects from the City’s pooled cash account until combined bonds could be issued, but an analysis of the interest revenue that would be forfeited by the advance is far greater than the additional issuing costs of splitting the bonds into two issues. The analysis shows that $203,000 of interest revenue would be forfeited by advancing the funds while the additional cost of issuance is about $40,000. In order for the bonds to be sold in June and closed in July, the work of preparing the necessary schedules and documents must begin almost immediately. The Administration is requesting informal Council approval to split the bonds into two separate issues. A current-year budget amendment is not necessary as financial transactions will not begin before July 2007. However, the Council will need to adopt resolutions in June for the sale of the bonds. Does the Council have questions regarding two bond issues rather than one? Does the Council wish to give informal approval for splitting the bond issues? Council Members were ok splitting the bond and moving ahead.
2. Resolution opposing further testing at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site: Attached is a resolution drafted by Council Member Jergensen opposing further nuclear testing in Nevada. Mayor Anderson reviewed this resolution and suggested sending a copy to the “appropriate representatives of the government of the United Kingdom” in addition to sending copies to President Bush, Utah’s Congressional Delegation and Governor Huntsman. The Mayor’s suggested language has been included in the attached draft for your consideration. Does the Council wish to forward a resolution to next Tuesday’s agenda for consideration? Does the Council wish to include the statement suggested by the Mayor regarding distributing a copy to representatives of the United Kingdom? Mayor Anderson is available to sign a joint resolution tomorrow. Council Members were in favor of taking out wording “of the United Kingdom”.
3. Would the Council like to interview Mr. Russell Pack for the Airport Board? Mr. Pack will retire from Salt Lake City Corporation on March 30, 2007 and Barbara Gann would like him to be appointed to this board by April 1, 2007. His application will be at your chairs for review so he can be on the March 20, 2007 consent agenda. Council Members only wanted to interview Mr. Pack if he wanted to be interviewed.
RESOLUTION OPPOSING FURTHER TESTING AT THE NEVADA NUCLEAR TEST SITE
WHEREAS, nuclear weapons testing – both above and below ground – performed at the Nevada Test Site has been shown to have disbursed radioactive material throughout the state of Utah and across the United States; and,
WHEREAS, many citizens of Salt Lake City living downwind from four decades of such tests have suffered negative health effects, including radiation poisoning, cancer, long term disability, and loss of life as a result of nuclear testing; and,
WHEREAS, the exhaustive and detailed research necessary to clearly and conclusively demonstrate that present nuclear testing would not cause a repeat of such negative effects on the citizens of Salt Lake City or any other area of Utah and the United States of America has not been openly provided for study and debate to the citizens of Salt Lake City; and,
WHEREAS, the resumption of testing at the Nevada Test Site, whether by the United States government or by the government of any other nation, without such exhaustive study and open explanation and debate is contrary to the principles of good deliberative government and does not fulfill the U.S. government’s responsibility for the protection of its citizenry; and,
WHEREAS, a broad coalition of citizens of Utah successfully united to oppose plans by the United States Department of Defense for the Divine Strake nuclear simulation testing; and,
WHEREAS, it is broadly known that the concerns of citizens regarding Divine Strake were based on the contradictory and inadequate information regarding potential detrimental health effects of the Divine Strake test; and,
WHEREAS, absent the clear, uncontroverted and conclusive evidence that such testing will not again create negative health effects amongst the citizens of Salt Lake City, no further testing – above or below ground – should be permitted at the Nevada Test Site;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson urges members of Congress, President George W. Bush and the governments of other nations, to cancel any present or potential future plans for testing at the Nevada Test Site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be sent to President George W. Bush, Utah’s Congressional Delegation and to Governor Jon Huntsman, and appropriate representatives of the government of the United Kingdom.
Airport Board Appointment – Russell Pack
INTRODUCTION:
Mayor Anderson is recommending Mr. Russell Pack to be appointed to the Airport Board, if appointed to this board he will replace Rick Howa whose term has expired. Mr. Pack will serve a term extending through January 17, 2011.
APPLICANT INFORMATION:
Russell Pack will be retiring as Interim Executive Director for the Salt Lake City Department of Airports on March 30, 2007. Mr. Pack would like to contribute to the Airport based on his previous experience with the Salt Lake City Airport. He is very involved on this board in the past and has been involved in the Utah Heritage Foundation, Utah Association of Garden Clubs and Red Butte Gardens.
RESPONSE DEADLINE:
If you have any objection to this appointment, please let Vicki know by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday March 15, 2007. Ms. Barbara Gann would like to see him appointed to this board by March 30, 2007 if possible.
CURRENT COMPOSITION OF AIRPORT BOARD:
The Airport Board consists of nine voting board members appointed to four-year term. Members may not currently be employed in commercial aeronautics. City ordinance allows four board members to reside outside City boundaries. Current board members include:
Jess Agraz, County Resident; Michael Bodell, County Resident; Keith Christensen, District 7; Mary Kay Griffin, District 6; Nancy Huntsman, District 3; Tammy Kikuchi Nakamura, County Resident; John Short, County Resident; and Andrea Wolcott, County Resident.
BOARD STRUCTURE:
The Airport Board was created to promote optimum safety, improve public service and continue profitability. It is an advisory board that makes recommendations to the Mayor regarding the operation and management of the City’s airports. As detailed in the Salt Lake City Code, the Airport Board shall “assist the director of airports in every way possible for the continuing orderly development and promotion of the airport in order to best serve the local and regional requirements for airport service.” The Airport Board has a duty to prepare an annual budget for operating and maintenance expenditures; plan and approve all construction and expansion projects; determine broad matters of policy regarding the operation and management of the airport; determine uses for airport land; and establish rate structures for services or facilities furnished by the airport.
March 13, 2007
City Council Announcements
March 13, 2007
A. Information Needed by Council Staff
1. The Council has recently reviewed the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and also approved funding an audit for its review. Additionally, Council Members have been contacted by and have expressed an interest in providing information about emergency preparedness to the various Community Councils, and residents. Would the Council Members be interested in forming an “Emergency Preparedness” sub-committee to interact with consultants if needed, and to address the types and nature of resources needed to respond to the requests by and for community members? All Council Members were in favor of forming a subcommittee with Council Members Christensen, Simonsen and Saxton.
2. Does the Council wish to confirm the schedule for the next two upcoming City Council Work Session Neighborhood Outreach Meetings?
District 6: Tuesday, April 24
5-6 p.m. tour/6-7 p.m. dinner/7-8:30 p.m. meeting
District 4: Thursday, May 3
5-6 p.m. tour/6-7 p.m. dinner/7-8:30 p.m. meeting
Please make note that the District 4 meeting is scheduled on a Thursday evening because the Tuesdays later in the month will more than likely be used for budget discussions.
What is the Council’s preference? All Council Members were in favor and wanted to continue the testing program through April.
3. The City Council approved a list of 18 community members who have been selected to serve on the Parley’s Historic Nature Park Working Group. The group is comprised of equal number of members who fit within the three categories: 1) in support of off-leash, 2) in opposition of off-leash, and 3) neutral with an affiliation from an outside organization. If selected community members reply that they have a conflict with the date of the meeting and are unable to attend, does the Council approve moving ahead with those who can serve? While this could result in an uneven number for the categories, the facilitator indicates that this should not be an issue, since the group is gathering to identify ideas, concerns, and options and is not a ‘voting’ group. The group is already rather large, and having a smaller group may be more productive. Council Members felt it should be a smaller group.
4. This item was discussed briefly during announcements on Tuesday, March 6th; however, Council staff was not clear in communicating to the Council the purpose of this announcement.
Is the Council interested in having BBC Research & Consulting and Galena Consulting (who recently prepared a study of the City’s Street Lighting Program) also conduct a study of the City’s Concrete Replacement Program for a cost of not-to-exceed $18,700? A summary of their proposal is provided again below.
Study Proposal of the City’s Concrete Replacement Program
Submitted by: BBC Research & Consulting & Galena Consulting
BBC Research & Consulting and Galena Consulting are the consultants who have recently prepared a study of the City’s street lighting program and funding options which is currently under review by the Administration prior to being submitted to the Council Office. The City Council previously selected a Concrete Replacement Program subcommittee at the March 30, 2006 Council Work Session consisting of: Council Members Christensen, Turner and Simonsen.
Taking into consideration there are similarities associated with funding and equity issues between the City’s Street Lighting Program and Concrete Replacement Program, a request was made of BBC Research & Consulting and Galena Consulting to submit a proposal to conduct a study of the City’s Concrete Replacement Program – addressing challenges the current program has with inadequate funding, multiple funding sources experienced by the City and potential program options. Since recently completing a study proposal of the City’s street lighting program, they have familiarized themselves with the City’s infrastructure.
Is the Council interested in contracting with BBC and Galena Consulting to conduct a study of the City’s Concrete Replacement Program? Council Members were in favor of waiting.
A statement of their firms’ relevant experience includes:
1. Analyses of the program and funding options for the SLC street sweeping, urban forestry, engineering, parks special events, and youth services programs;
2. Salt Lake City fiscal impact analysis: potential fiscal impact of the City’s slow population growth in comparison to faster growing suburban communities.
3. Recently completed City’s Street Lighting Program study, and;
4. Various analyses performed for the cities of Logan, Draper, Town of Parker, Colorado; Casa Grande, AZ; and Greenwood Village, CO – for approximately 30 clients annually, BBC prepares fiscal impact studies evaluating the likely public costs and revenues imposed by proposed new developments.
As part of the Concrete Replacement Program study, they have proposed a ten-step project plan that involves:
1. Review analysis conducted to date;
2. Conduct research of best practices;
3. Identify Concrete Replacement Program options;
4. Estimate costs associated with program options;
5. Prioritize program options;
6. Analyze Funding Issue;
7. Identify and prioritize alternative financing options;
8. Identify recommended implementation and management;
9. Prepare draft report; and
10. Prepare final report.
Proposed Schedule
Produce draft report within 90 days of contract execution, final report ASAP thereafter
Proposed Budget
Complete this study -- not-to-exceed $18,700 (includes professional time and direct expenses such as travel and report production costs).
Anticipate City Staff Involvement:
Attendance at meetings with the study team to facilitate project management
Participation in data collection and cost estimation
Review draft and final reports to ensure accurate interpretations of local government data.
5. Council Member Carlton Christensen wanted to provide Council Members with advance notice regarding an interlocal agreement that will be making its way to the Council in the near future. This is associated with Budget Amendment Number Three, Item I-2, a request for $19,350 of fund balance from the City’s General Fund.
This relates to action taken by the Utah State Legislature in 1995 that created the current townships in Salt Lake County. The Township Provision was set to expire in 2005, but was extended to 2010 by a bill sponsored by former Representative Susan Lawrence with the condition that residents be surveyed to determine their desire for future forms of governance when the township provision expires.
In order to meet the requirements of this legislation, the County, in conjunction with the Utah League of Cities and Towns, townships, and neighboring municipalities established a process that would include hiring a consultant(s) to:
1. Develop and prepare educational and informational materials to facilitate the survey process, and
2. Conduct a survey to determine the desires of residents and property owners within the townships with regard to annexation, incorporation, or remaining in the unincorporated area of the County, with the results being assessed and evaluated by the consultant.
The survey, assessment, evaluation, and development of a plan will be completed prior to July 1, 2008. Total estimated cost of the project is $300,000:
1. $100,000 for educational material
2. $200,000 for the survey
Salt Lake County will assume 50% of the cost for the consultant(s). Participating cities within the County will share the remaining 50% of the total costs in the following proportions: Holladay 9.6%, Sandy 2.1%, Murray 6.3%, South Salt Lake 4.6%, Salt Lake City 12.9%, Taylorsville 2.8%, West Valley City 9.3%, South Jordan 0.1%, and West Jordan 2.4%. All of the Salt Lake County townships, Emigration, Millcreek, White City, Copperton, Kearns, and Magna, are participating in this project.
Tentative Timeline:
1. October 2006 Initial Stakeholders Summit: Initiation of an internal review of the County municipal fund and annexation/incorporation impacts
2. September - March 2007 Creation of MOU/interlocal agreements
3. January - June 2007 Prepare draft RFP for consultant
4. June 2007 Present draft RFP to stakeholder for approval
5. August - November 2007 RFP released/consultant chosen
6. November 2007 Second Stakeholders Summit with consultant regarding survey content
7. April 2008 Survey completed
8. May 2008 Stakeholder Summit to discuss results of survey
9. July 1, 2008 Presentation to the State Legislature
For Your Information
1. Attached are the Interim Financial Statements for the period ending December 31, 2006. Let Gary know if you have questions. Included in the narrative is a brief explanation of some variances of general fund revenue and expenditures. Separate from this report, the Finance Director provided a revenue forecast in connection with budget amendment #3. The Finance Division is projecting that general fund revenue will exceed budget by $1.7 million by June 30 primarily because of favorable sale tax revenue.