City Council Announcements
May 20, 2003
A. Decisions, Feedback & Information needed by staff
1. Houser Statues: Attached is the response to a letter written by Mr. Thomas Christensen, Jr. of the Salt Lake Foundation. The Salt Lake Foundation is the group that has raised funds for the purchase and placement of the Houser Sculptures at Washington Square. The City has entered into a contract with the Salt Lake Foundation for the placement and maintenance of the Statues. The City does not own the statues, they are owned by the Foundation. The City is responsible for the maintenance of the statues. During the budget adoption for fiscal year 2001-2002, the Council appropriated $200,000 in matching funds for the purchase of the sculptures. The other donors for the statues did not want to donate to the City, but would to the Foundation. That is the reason that the City does not own the statues.
If the Council wishes, a briefing on the Houser Statues can be presented. No decision made.
Attachments: Letter from Council Chair thanking the Salt Lake Foundation for their efforts and the Contract with the Salt Lake Foundation for the placement and maintenance of the statues.
2.Downtown SID: Council Members have asked for information about the Downtown Special Improvement District contracting process. Currently the Downtown Alliance holds this contract, and it is time for the district to be put out to bid again. The process is modeled after the Special Improvement Districts for lighting and concrete replacement. The enabling power is in State Statute.
CED Deputy Director David Dobbins has been working with the City Attorney's Office and bond counsel to respond to Council Members' questions. David has received basic verbal answers from the bond counsel and has provided a summary to us.
With regard to the second answer below, because the Council sometimes like to be as clear as possible on legislative and executive power separation, we wanted to double check to confirm whether the proposed approach is acceptable to the Council based on this initial legal information, or whether the Council would like to request that bond counsel be asked to provide a formal, written opinion.
David Dobbins reports that bond counsel indicates that the nature of this district is fundamentally different from typical SID's because we are contracting for professional services, not actual improvement work, and therefore it can be handled differently. Following is David's summary of bond counsel's answers:
"Timing of RFP - The city can select a contractor prior to issuing the notice of intent because the contract is for "professional services," not physical improvements, and therefore the statute does not apply in this situation.
Who makes the contract award - Again, because this contract is for professional services, not physical improvements, the Council does not need to be the body that awards the contract, the Administration can do it, or we can do a combined effort. I would recommend that we form a committee that includes a Council representative(s).
Basis for awarding contract - same as #1 & 2 above. We are contracting for professional services, so we do not need to take the lowest qualified bidder, we can make the award based on the best use of the available funds."
The reason Council staff is double checking with the Council on this is that Subsections 17A-3-308(2)(d), (e) and (f) all refer to the "governing body" (which is defined in 17A-3-303(6) as the city council) as the body that opens the bids and awards any contract for improvements. These sections are within the SID area of State Statute.
Does the Council wish to support the committee approach to review the contract applicants jointly with the Administration, or does the Council wish to seek a more detailed legal opinion? Keep the same process as in the past, but have Bond Counsel clarify the position.
3. Council Chairman Carlton Christensen has asked that Council Members keep their schedules open on Thursday, June 26th in the event that the evening is needed for budget adoption. OK
4. The Chair and Vice Chair discussed the possibility of holding an extended budget briefing session on either Tuesday, May 27 or Thursday, May 29 beginning at 2:00 p.m. Would Council Members be interested in scheduling this? No afternoon meetings.
5. Main Street / Gateway Issue: Some Council Members have suggested establishing one or two contact or 'lead' Council Members for this issue for the following purposes:
To enhance communication
To reduce the potential for confusion
To help reduce the amount of time the property owners / developers and Council Members are spending to discuss and coordinate.
Is the Council interested in taking this approach? Information related to Council, talk to Jill. Information related to the RDA talk to Van.
6. Budget Discussion Lunches: Would the dates below work? Let Mary of Lehua know.
Wednesday, May 21
Thursday, May 22
Monday, May 26
Tuesday, May 27
Wednesday, May 28
Thursday, May 29
B. Council Office Policies
C. For Your Information
1. Attached is a 3 page document that shows the revised General Fund Revenue Budget as outlined in the budget book and clarified during the Budget Overview briefing on the 13th. You will note that the Interest Income revenue amount has been reduced to $1,900,000. This results in a $1,000,000 reduction in Interest Income when compared to the fiscal year 2002-2003 adopted budget. A corresponding $1,600,000 increase has been noted on "Administrative fees from other City funds" line resulting in proposed revenue of $8,008,852.
This correction on the table brings the Council staff budget overview report inline with what was discussed during the presentation on the 13th. If you have any questions please call. Please rely upon this information rather than on the budget book document.
D. Upcoming Appointments (see attached goldenrod sheet)
E. Upcoming Agenda items (see attached goldenrod sheet)
F. Informational Mail items received (see attached goldenrod sheet)
Additional City Council Announcements
May 20, 2003
A. Decisions, Feedback & Information needed by staff
1. Consul General of Switzerland Reception,
Thursday, May 29, 2003 6:00 PM-6:30 PM
This is now scheduled for the 3rd floor of the City and County Building. We have scheduled a Council Meeting beginning at 5:30 that night. They are expecting to have a reception there at the same time. It has been suggested that we use Memorial House for our meeting. What would Council Members prefer to do? It was decided to use the Planning Commission Room in the City/County Building (Room 126)
2. Telecommunications Ordinance: Industry representatives have raised a number of concerns. Would any of the Council Members be available to meet with representatives of the industry and the Administration to review the concerns? Will check back with Council. A lot of the questions have been answered.
3. Banners: The Administration is in the process of preparing an ordinance to specify where and when decorative banners can be used. This will be forwarded to the Council in the next 6 months. The Mayor did an executive order to allow for those on the Library block, after checking in with the Council. The Administration has recently received requests from Red Butte Garden, Hogle Zoo, This is the Place State Park, the Asthma Walk, the University of Utah and Rose Park Community Council Spring Fiesta. Is the Council interested in expressing support for another executive order as an interim measure? No opposition from Council Members.