The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, August 25, 2015, at 2:13 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street.
In Attendance: Council Members Luke Garrott, James Rogers, Erin Mendenhall, Charlie Luke, Kyle LaMalfa, Stan Penfold, and Lisa Adams.
Staff in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Jennifer Bruno, Executive Council Deputy Director; David Everitt, Mayor’s Chief of Staff; Margaret Plane, City Attorney; Lehua Weaver, Council Senior Policy Analyst; Jill Remington Love, Community and Economic Development Director; DJ Baxter, Redevelopment Agency Director; Sean Murphy, Council Public Policy Analyst; Thomas Ward, Public Utilities Deputy Director; Brad Stewart, Public Utilities Engineer; Garth Limburg, Financial Analyst; Kory Solorio, Assistant City Recorder; and Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder.
Guests in Attendance: Natalie Gochnour, Associate Dean, David Eccles School of Business and Linda Hamilton, Special Lighting District Consultant.
Councilmember Garrott presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 2:13 p.m.
Note: Some Agenda Items were addressed out of order.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. 3:44:49 PM HOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN SALT LAKE CITY, INCLUDING POSSIBLY UPDATING THE COUNCIL 2012 PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT ON THE ECONOMIC HEALTH OF THE CITY, AND DISCUSSING INDICATORS OF SUCCESSFUL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. View Attachments
Jennifer Bruno and Jill Love briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included policy statement needed new Council Members input, what should economic development look like, develop ways to measure success/outcomes, social mobility/income/wealth were components for economically successful communities, evolve business nodes including funding/tracking mechanisms, elevate philosophy statement effectiveness, master plans (Plan Salt Lake) were strongest policy tools, allocate additional funding for data collection, measure goals in current philosophy statement before pursuing changes, how to define/measure happiness, promote economic development through value statements, adopt an official economic development plan/pledge, conduct workshop/fact-finding event, focus direction, develop marketing to promote programs to businesses, and review process annually.
Discussion was held on the potential to develop a plan that could be officially adopted by the Council. Councilmember Garrott suggested having Staff collect current data, add new insights from Council Members, and develop a scope-of-work/plan with specific parameters that everyone could agree on which could be adopted by resolution. Straw Poll: Support for Councilmember Garrott’s suggestion. All Council Members were in favor.
#2. 2:14:01 PM RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON ENTERPRISE/SLC, AN EFFORT TO GATHER DATA AND SEEK INPUT ON SALT LAKE CITY’S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS. Through roundtable and individual sessions, the Administration has gathered information on the City’s economic strengths and weaknesses in order to design a common vision and plan for economic prosperity. View Attachments
Natalie Gochnour, Jill Love, and DJ Baxter briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included “Navigator with Leverage” needed to help investors utilize City processes, recruitment efforts, customer service enhancements, review ordinances to ensure they do not impede economic development/eliminate roadblocks, address homeless services, unify City and Redevelopment Agency (RDA) efforts, define economic development, prison relocation impacts, infrastructure investment, economic development driven by investment and productivity, identify service gaps, develop a vision for economic development, align expenditures with City policies/masterplans, adopt official economic development policy, business incentives/tax breaks, utilize RDA tools to implement plans, develop public/private partnerships, attract regional/national business headquarters, streamline City processes, develop consistent/transparent processes/policies, income-wealth-opportunity were necessary elements for communities to prosper, develop methods to assist neighborhoods which need access to greater opportunities, support neighborhood centers, consider medical facility near Intermodal Hub, maximize presence of University of Utah, identify how incentives benefit the City, and analyze benefits versus costs.
Councilmember Mendenhall said the Council previously discussed the idea of notifying businesses about code changes through their business license renewal and requested follow-up about whether that was taking place.
Ms. Gochnour said she was available for further follow-up questions or briefings/discussions.
#3. 3:19:20 PM HOLD A DISCUSSION WITH THE ADMINISTRATION ON CURRENT TOOLS THAT ARE USED IN THE CITY’S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS, ADDITIONAL RESOURCES OR SUPPORT THAT ARE NEEDED. View Attachments
Jill Love and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included three-point economic development pledge, culture shift, prioritize commercial success, strengthen partnerships, address barriers, facilitate/issue on-site permits, Citywide ordinance review/updates, conduct quarterly forum with residents/stakeholders, ombudsman services, audit implementation, greater collaboration between Economic Development and RDA, impact fee issues, “Buy Your Building” concept, funding needed for business cultivation/recruitment, homeless issues/barriers, upgrade Utah Jazz Arena, create business/neighborhood nodes, actively market loan fund, difficulties involved in streamlining processes, how to evaluate State tax structure (revenue through property/sales tax), evaluate faster permit process for residential versus commercial, how to avoid repeating mistakes relating to past vendors, design a scope of work through a well developed Request for Proposal (RFP), require funding matches, previous vendor not chartered to help City, and develop strong policy guidelines relating to development of a “Tech and Innovation Area” west of downtown (Fleet Block/Granary Area).
Ms. Love said she would come back to the Council in a budget opening with requests for a number of issues identified in the transmittal (including staffing changes). She said Council would also receive an upcoming transmittal requesting a 12-month moratorium on impact fees to allow time to develop an impact fee plan.
Councilmember Penfold requested additional information on 1) how to streamline the permit process with Business License and Community and Economic Development, 2) how to align the RDA’s role in economic development, and 3) how to evaluate the State tax structure which did not provide revenue through job creation but rather through property/sales tax (tie job creation to some return to the City such as housing or some other component).
Councilmember Rogers requested information regarding the potential to streamline a quicker permit process for residential applications.
Councilmember LaMalfa asked Council to send strong policy guidance about supporting Enterprise SLC and utilize available resources in the area west of downtown such as the Fleet Block and Granary.
#4. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP) AND FINANCIAL TOOLKIT
a. 4:41:32 PM The Council will continue to discuss the Mayor’s recommended budget relating to the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2014-2015. Capital improvements involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures. Generally, projects have a useful life of five or more years and cost $50,000 or more.
b. The Council will be briefed about progress on the City’s development of a financial toolkit that will aid in master plan implementation. The toolkit is comprised of three phases. Phase 1 is now complete.
Sean Murphy briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included Council funding priorities, Westside Master Plan eligible projects, Urban Forestry, constituent requests, 900 South rehabilitation, utilize Class C funds for safety improvements in business nodes, utilize Westside Master Plan, and identify impact fee eligible projects.
Councilmember Penfold said the tree planting/pruning item under Urban Forestry felt like a maintenance issue and suggested exploring the possibility of moving it to a budget amendment rather than having it as a CIP project (also incorporate in long-term annual budget). Ms. Gust-Jenson said Staff would work with the Administration and get back to Council.
Councilmember Garrott asked Council Members to take additional time to review the spreadsheet/log in preparation for the next CIP discussion.
#5. 5:01:33 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM LINDA HAMILTON, A CONSULTANT WHO RECENTLY STUDIED THE CITY’S SPECIAL LIGHTING DISTRICTS AND RELATED FINANCIAL ISSUES. The report will include findings about the circumstances surrounding the negative fund balances for certain extensions (neighborhoods) in Special Lighting Districts L01, L02 and L03. This information will assist the Council in its comprehensive policy discussions that will guide how Special Lighting Special Assessment Areas (SAA) can be improved and more transparent in the future.
Linda Hamilton, Jan Aramaki, Lehua Weaver, Tom Ward, Garth Limberg, and Brad Stewart briefed the Council with a PowerPoint and attachments. Comments included complex issue/no easy solution, ensure sustainability, avoid deficits, general fund subsidy, petitions submitted for special lighting, geographic inconsistencies/overlaps, residential/commercial combinations, liens expensive/ineffective, potential to collect payments through utility bills, some residents receiving benefits for special lighting they did not pay for, residents not allowed to protest original SAA creations, resident concerns about having to pay off debt incurred by prior property owners, notification to prospective homeowners/buyers, recorded documents show assessments/liens against properties, analyze assessment on a per-resident basis, each extension represents an entire neighborhood, address equity issues, incorporate extensions in Lighting Enterprise Fund as some type of enhanced feature, installation and ongoing operation/maintenance costs, spread maintenance costs over more properties, communicate with property owners during process, and apply principals equally across the board.
Additional discussion was held regarding financial status, what caused negative or positive balances, fundamental SAA issues, future management of street lighting expenses/assessments, options to resolve current issues with SAAs, and alternatives for billings/assessments.
Councilmember Penfold suggested Council consider moving SAAs to the Enterprise Fund as enhanced levels of service. He said it would accomplish several things like having a monthly bill (make collection easier), spread expense over more properties, and help facilitate adding future lighting areas/neighborhoods.
Councilmember LaMalfa said he wanted to include something to address different maintenance levels regarding enhanced lighting (establish reserve for major replacements). He also wanted to find a way to make this right for the rest of the City who did not have enhanced/special lighting. Councilmember Penfold said he thought the City would do a recalibration, eliminate 25% General Fund subsidy, and provide different service levels which residents could choose from (new program would be fully loaded with maintenance costs and future reserves).
Councilmember LaMalfa asked if Option 2 was off the table. Councilmember Garrott said no. Ms. Weaver said Staff would come back to the Council with specifics about Option 1 including potential changes to individual extensions with examples of outliers within extensions. She said Staff would also need further direction on whether to do anything on an extension-by-extension basis versus the L01-L02 level.
Councilmember LaMalfa said lighting quality was different across various districts and requested tie-in information about deficits and age. Ms. Weaver said Staff would include categories for cost/quality.
Straw Poll: Support to move in the general direction of an Enterprise Fund where special SAA’s would be rolled into an enhanced surcharge account. A majority of the Council was in favor.
Councilmember LaMalfa expressed concerns about the potential to end up in the same financial crisis with the new proposal and wanted appropriate measures taken to ensure that did not happen. Ms. Weaver said the Council had full latitude to establish policy direction for how the fund would be managed. She said other stipulations Council Members might be interested in could be attached to an approval moving forward. Councilmember LaMalfa said he was looking for some way the Council could govern/audit the fund in order to prevent the current status from happening again.
Ms. Weaver asked if Council wanted to hold another discussion before setting a public hearing. Councilmember Garrott said yes.
#6. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE FOR ANY ALLOWED PURPOSE.
Item not held.
The Work Session meeting adjourned at 5:56 p.m.
This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as other items may have been discussed; please refer to the audio or video for entire content.
This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held August 25, 2015.
sc