The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, August 4, 2015, at 2:15 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street.
In Attendance: Council Members Luke Garrott, Erin Mendenhall, Charlie Luke, Kyle LaMalfa, Stan Penfold, and Lisa Adams.
Absent: James Rogers.
Staff in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Executive Deputy Director; David Everitt, Mayor’s Chief of Staff; Lehua Weaver, Council Senior Public Policy Analyst; Jeff Snelling, City Engineer; Libby Stockstill, Council Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst; Nick Tarbet, Council Senior Policy Analyst; Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney; Nancy Monteith, Parks Landscape Architect; Cindi Mansell, City Recorder; and Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder.
Guests in Attendance: Dr. Sammie Dickson, Mosquito Abatement District; Dr. Ary Faraji, Mosquito Abatement District; Quin Monson, Y2 Analytics Partner; Kyrene Gibb, Y2 Analytics Research Director; and Ryan Bjerke, Bond Counsel/Chapman and Cutler.
Councilmember Garrott presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 2:15 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. 2:14:57 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ABOUT A PROPOSED TAX INCREASE FOR THE MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT. The revenue from the increase would be used to make facility improvements, improve surveillance and control methods, add technical personnel, and more. (Item H1)
Lehua Weaver, Dr. Dickson, and Dr. Faraji briefed the Council with a PowerPoint and attachments. Comments included impact on 2016-2017 budget, $2.3 million annual budget, service area overview, cooperative agreements with other abatement districts, spray authority, aerial applications, integrated mosquito management, economic benefits, target specific products, rural/urban habitat, mosquito fish, authority to drain residential pools, educate public about program/potential dangers, migration of invasive mosquitoes, notify taxpayers about proposal/tax increase, new Council process/participation, potential to approve lower tax rate, global climate change, funding elements associated with proposal, lack of sustainable funds, reduced number of grants available, potential for in-house testing to improve response and treatment times, add new facilities/personnel, share laboratories/testing facilities with other districts, and potential to generate revenue.
Councilmember Garrott requested an itemized list/business plan showing structure/function of the District. He said the information needed to include what new facilities/amenities were needed such as vehicles/bikes, number of employees (positions/duties), and how new revenue would be allocated/utilized. He suggested making the information available to the public as well. Ms. Weaver said a public hearing was scheduled for August 18, 2015.
#2. 3:02:11 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ABOUT THE RESULTS OF AN ONLINE AND PHONE SURVEY CONDUCTED BY Y2 ANALYTICS. The survey was designed to measure the current mood of residents and compare to years past, determine if City resources are aligned with resident values, implement citywide performance measures, and validate the relevance of communication messages coming from the City.
Jennifer Bruno, Quin Monson, and Kyrene Gibb briefed the Council with a PowerPoint and attachments. Comments included mixed mode survey (online/phone) utilized, survey intended to weight samples so demographics were reflective of 2013 census estimates, methodology issues, racial demographics, strong negative responses received about parking kiosks, street maintenance, and traffic signal timing.
Councilmember Penfold requested additional information/comparison about census breakdown (how that related to racial demographics). Councilmember Mendenhall requested information about whether residents had different responses during election versus non-election years. Mr. Monson said they would review their data.
Councilmember Mendenhall requested that staff include survey questions about neighborhood amenities such as walkability during upcoming Transit Master Plan discussions (survey should inform future Council discussions).
Mr. Monson said questions about how safe residents felt in their neighborhoods showed significant differences Citywide and recommended the Council pay particular attention to that information.
Councilmember Garrott said he thought survey data would/should enlighten/shape a lot of the Council’s policy decisions. He asked Council Members to consider if any survey questions applied to the Council’s current decision about putting a General Obligation Bond on the ballot. Mr. Monson said his staff could provide further analysis on any subject the Council was interested in (e-mail or personal briefing)
Discussion was held on utilizing survey data to help address/inform future policy/budget discussions relating to the Police Department and neighborhood safety issues. Councilmember Penfold said the concept of statistical reality versus community perception needed further analysis. Councilmember Garrott said he wanted to schedule a Work Session briefing to discuss how the Council wanted to utilize survey data in making decisions about future policy discussions.
Ms. Bruno said the survey contained some unique features based on how data was collected/presented compared to prior years which could make it easier for Council staff/analysts to use during policy discussions. Councilmember LaMalfa suggested having the Council make a request for the Administration to have each department review survey data and submit performance feedback/suggestions pertinent to their situation. He said that information could help inform future Council policy discussions (could also be part of the budget process).
Councilmember Garrott said City Boards/Commissions could also be asked to submit a written response. Ms. Bruno said staff would send a request to the Administration.
#3. 3:56:49 PM HOLD A FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION ABOUT OPTIONS FOR A PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE BOND PROPOSAL. If approved by voters, the potential bond would result in a property tax increase for residents and property owners and would be used to pay for more outdoor recreational opportunities in the City – including converting some current open spaces into new uses, adding trail improvements and connections, and other opportunities. The Council will vote on August 18 to determine if the bond will be placed on the November ballot.
Libby Stockstill, Jennifer Bruno, Jeff Snelling, Rick Graham, Nancy Monteith, Ryan Bjerke, and Lehua Weaver briefed the Council with a PowerPoint and attachments.
Councilmember Garrott said Council Members ranked 15 different elements of the Mayor’s proposal which were compiled by staff and listed on the attached spreadsheet. He said individual projects were listed under each category. He said “trails” was the highest ranked item. He said as items were discussed, he wanted Council Members to keep an aggregate amount in mind they thought was prudent to put on the ballot.
Councilmember Penfold said discussions were held about adding intent language for certain components and asked if there was a process for capturing those. Councilmember Garrott said they would be captured as the Council went through the list.
Ms. Weaver said the attached spreadsheet/project log included project costs. She said 57% was added to projects (industry standard) to cover soft costs such as construction markups, contingencies, permits, additional planning, site evaluation, environmental mitigation, etc. She said it was important to include soft costs because the bond had a “not-to-exceed” amount. She said other bond related costs needed to be included such as bond issuance and project management expenses, net zero/green infrastructure expenses, consultant expenses, administrative costs, and 1% for “Percent-for-Art”.
Ms. Weaver asked Council Members to clearly articulate what they expected funding to achieve for each proposed project. She said it would also be helpful if the Council could let Staff know if they had specific ideas about how proposals would be “packaged or branded”.
Discussion was held on the ordinance governing “Percent-for-Art” during construction projects. Councilmember Penfold requested further clarification regarding the ordinance. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the Council could change the ordinance or policy and suggested that the Council make policy decisions and then address the ordinance. Ms. Weaver said Staff would keep the issue in mind and prepare motions for the Council to consider on August 18, 2015.
Councilmember Mendenhall expressed concern about branding the proposal “Connecting You to Nature” if the bond was going to include existing CIP projects or deferred maintenance/infrastructure issues which did not accomplish that goal (public outreach conducted for original branding).
Councilmember Adams said she wanted to leave disc golf at the Par 3 site and create a smaller nature park. Ms. Weaver said the Administration needed to provide an “acreage breakout” to determine the amount of remaining land.
Discussion was held on secondary water. Ms. Weaver said the Council could identify individual parks for secondary water or set aside a specific amount to cover all projects. (identify parks where secondary water was even possible). Ms. Weaver said the Administration provided a list of 14 eligible parks which included golf courses (total $18 million). Mr. Graham said Public Utilities was engaged in a broad study regarding opportunities for secondary water Citywide and where reliable secondary water sources existed. The Council requested the total acreage/percentage for all parcels which could potentially be converted.
Discussion was held on Councilmember Adam’s suggestion to delay putting the proposal on the ballot this year and spending more time preparing a well-crafted proposal for a future ballot. Comments included additional public outreach, bond proposal too high, time needed to craft sound proposal including cost analysis, identify potential funding partners, bond cap, process started by Council, re-evaluate prior straw polls, voters to make final decision about moving forward, ability to encumber matching funds, and time needed to discuss and craft detailed/itemized information for ballot
Further discussion was held on whether Council Members wanted to continue pursuing the bond. Councilmember LaMalfa said the Council previously voted to move forward with the bond. Councilmember Garrott said that was done by a straw poll which could/should be reconsidered. Councilmember Penfold said Council Members who were interested in moving forward could prepare a specific proposal including a dollar amount that could be structured by Staff for follow-up discussion on August 18th. Councilmember Garrott asked if there were three Council Members who wanted to continue. A 3-3 Straw Poll was taken to continue the discussion. Council Members Mendenhall, Penfold, and LaMalfa were in support. Council Members Luke, Garrott, and Adams were opposed.
Discussion/straw polls were held on the following Sections:
Section 1 - Straw Polls:
•Item 1.1 - 9-Line extension (trans-valley corridor). All Council Members present were in favor except Councilmember Adams who was opposed.
•Item 1.2 – Bonneville Shoreline/Foothill Trail improvements Phase I. All Council Members present were in favor except Council Members Adams and Garrott who were opposed.
•Item 1.3 – Bonneville 13 Golf Course Trail/Wasatch Connector. All Council Members present were in favor except Councilmember Garrott who was opposed.
•Item 1.4 – Folsom Trail (north connection Foothills to river). All Council Members present were in favor. Councilmember Penfold suggested looking at developing this in phases with the potential for Redevelopment Agency (RDA) participation.
Section 2 – Straw Polls:
•Item 2.1 – 02-Secondary Water – Support for $18 million. All Council Members present were in favor.
•Support to flag for additional consideration. All Council Members present were opposed except Councilmember Penfold who was in favor.
•Item 2.2 – 02-Secondary Water projects (at 11th Ave, Nibley & Forest Dale) Ms. Weaver said Items 2.2 and 2.3 did not need discussion based on the $18 million straw poll.
Section 3 - Straw Polls:
•3-1 – Nature Theme Neighborhood Park – Council Members LaMalfa, Penfold, and Mendenhall were in favor. Council Members Adams, Garrott, and Luke were opposed. Councilmember Garrott said due to a 3-3 tie vote the straw poll failed. Councilmember Penfold raised an objection about failing tied votes. Straw Poll: (following discussion) all tie votes would be tabled. All Council Members present were in support except Council Members Garrott and Luke who were opposed. Councilmember Garrott said Item 3-1 was tabled until the next meeting.
•3.2 – Passive Park at Glendale/Nature Park - All Council Members present were in favor.
•3.3 – Streamside amenities/naturalization along the Jordan River – Support as proposed (prioritized as restoration, access, and amenities). All Council Members present were in favor.
•3.4 – Nature Center - $2.5 million allocation with a required 50/50 match (location to be determined). All Council Members present were in favor.
•3.5 – Passive Park - 01-Trails, bridge, native plantings, grotto, fence, bike rake, etc. Discussion included whether to continue disk golf (9 acres), prioritize elements, nature center partnership, privately funded amenities, one acre nature center too small, acreage would include neighborhood functions, dedicated nature education, naturalized areas, adopt resolution outlining Council expectations, original vision did not include disk golf, modifications to other amenities would be required to accommodate disk golf, relocate disk golf to Glendale, and guarantee disk golf would exist somewhere. Straw Poll: Support for a full disk golf course at Par 3 or Glendale. All Council Members present were in favor.
•Support for Item 3.5 - Passive Park. All Council Members present were opposed except Council Members Mendenhall and LaMalfa who were in favor.
Section 4:
Discussion was held about projects/amenities relating to Glendale Regional Park and Jordan River/Surplus Canal.
Straw Polls:
•4.1 – Water Sport Park – Councilmember Garrott requested additional information about water rights/flows/controls along the Jordan River and Surplus Canal. Support to move forward. Councilmember Garrott said the item was tabled due to a 3-3 tie vote. (individual vote count was not clarified)
•Councilmember LaMalfa’s Straw Poll for Item 4.1 requiring a 50/50 match. All Council Members present were in favor, except Council Members Garrott and Luke who were opposed.
•Support to remove three boat launches from 4.1. All Council Members present were in favor. (reduce match requirement on remaining items in 4.1))
•Support for 4.2 – Large boat launch – All Council Members present were in favor except Council Members Adams and Luke who were opposed.
•4.3 – Small boat launch (7) – All Council Members present were in favor except Councilmember Penfold who was opposed.
•4.4 – Portage Gatsby – All Council Members present were in favor.
Councilmember Garrott asked for the current project/bond total. Ms. Weaver said the not-to-exceed bond about was $95,000,000,051. She said that included consultant/bond issuance costs, project maintenance, net zero green infrastructure, and 1% for art.
Section 5:
Discussion was held on components/projects that would qualify for bond funding. Comments included ongoing operations/maintenance costs, adding $150 million of additional items on top of the $70 million needed for existing park projects which had already been approved through a formal process, irresponsible to continue to adding new projects, fund at least $50 million (or a percentage of total bond) of existing un-funded capital improvements/projects, projects had to be Park related to qualify for bond, utilize Y2 Analytics survey, ten-year CIP log, and some project costs not including site amenities.
Straw Polls:
•5.1 – Set aside amount for deferred maintenance projects. – All Council Members present were in favor of including some level of CIP.
•5.1 Additional Straw Poll: Support to fund some CIP amount. All Council Members present were in favor.
•5.1 Additional Straw Poll: Support to fund $25 million of CIP. All Council Members present were in favor except Councilmember Penfold who was opposed.
•5.1 Additional Straw Poll: Support to fund $35 million of CIP. All Council Members present were in favor except Councilmember Penfold who was opposed.
•5.1 Additional Straw Poll: Support to fund $50 million of CIP. All Council Members present were in favor except Council Members Penfold and LaMalfa who were opposed
•Additional Straw Poll: Support to limit the maximum bond amount to $150 million. All Council Members present were in favor.
Councilmember Garrott said he was comfortable with the progress that had been made, having an established not-to-exceed amount ($150 million), and the Council’s ability to make adjustments at the August 18, 2015 meeting.
Note: 7:07:34 PM Councilmember Garrott excused himself and asked Councilmember Penfold to conduct the remainder of the meeting.
#4. 7:07:43 PM HOLD A DISCUSSION ABOUT A PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ENACT TEMPORARY LAND USE REGULATIONS RELATED TO MAXIMUM BUILDING SIZE FOR THE COMMUNITY BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT, AS REGULATED IN THE SALT LAKE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE 21A). Related provisions of Title 21A, Zoning, may also be amended as part of this ordinance. (Item F1)
Nick Tarbet and Paul Nielson briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included amending Section 21A.26.030(E), limit maximum building size at 20,000 square feet, proposal would prohibit applicants from using Conditional Building Site Design Review process to exceed existing limits, create better framework/context for future exemptions, large projects required lots to be compiled into one parcel, exemptions were per parcel (not per zone), and six month limit on moratoriums.
Mr. Nielson expressed concerns about existing parameters in the City Code and felt revisions were needed to either limit size/height of buildings relative to adjacent structures or provide some maximum limit/number. Councilmember Luke said he assumed that would be part of the process during the moratorium. Mr. Neilson said he would discuss the issue with the Planning Division.
Councilmember Penfold asked if adopting an ordinance would initiate a request for review and text amendments or should the Council adopt some intent language to start a conversation with the Planning Department and Planning Commission to explore text modifications relating to conditional use requests. Ms. Gust-Jenson said although Planning participated in ongoing conversations, making a separate request would provide more clarity.
Councilmember Mendenhall said if text amendments could not be accomplished before the moratorium expired then a discussion needed to be held about requiring a permanent 20,000 square foot cap until a new ordinance could be adopted.
Councilmember Adams said this issue impacted her district and wanted to ensure tools were in place to control mass/scale/height limits and parking issues.
Note: See File M 15-3 for formal motion/minutes.
#5. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business.
•Scheduling Items
No discussion was held.
#6. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
No discussion was held.
#7. 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 7:27 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 4, 2015.
sc