The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, December 1, 2015, at 2:06 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; David Everitt, Mayor’s Chief of Staff; Margaret Plane, City Attorney; Sean Murphy, Council Public Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Senior Public Policy Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Senior Public Policy Analyst; Sylvia Richards, Council Public Policy Analyst; Nick Tarbet, Council Public Policy Analyst; Michaela Oktay, Planning Manager; Nora Shepard, Planning Director; John Vuyk, City Budget Manager; Robin Hutcheson, Transportation Director; Katia Pace, Principal Planner; J.P. Goates, Principal Planner; Anthony Riederer, Principal Planner; Katherine Potter, Mayor’s Senior Advisor; Gina Chamness, Budget Director; Dan Weist, Council Communication Director; Boyd Ferguson, Senior City Attorney; Nichol Bourdeaux, Mayor’s Deputy Chief of Staff; Cindi Mansell, City Recorder; and Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder.
Guests in Attendance: Neil Lindberg, City Council Legal Counsel, Holly Yocom, Salt Lake County Community Services Associate Director; and Martha Barton, Cultural Core Budget Committee Board Member.
Councilmember Garrott presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 2:06 p.m.
Note: Some items were taken out of order.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. 3:07:57 PM A STATUS UPDATE AND END OF YEAR REPORT ON THE COUNCIL’S SIX PRIORITY PROJECTS AND 10 ACTIVE PROJECTS. View Attachments As a reminder, the following Council 2015 priorities are: Economic Development; Urban Forestry; recreation bond; Impact Fees; Capital Improvement Program; and Westside Master Plan & implementation model. The 10 Active Projects included: Sexual Assault audit of Justice System; Prison; Police use of lethal force – training, funding, update, status; Dog-Off Leash; Housing; Homelessness; Disposition of property; Campaign Finance; Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs); and Parking – big inventory of changes.
Lehua Weaver briefed the Council with attachments. She reviewed upcoming projects (no specific direction was requested from Council).
Councilmember Garrott asked when Staff would be prepared to update Council. Ms. Weaver said written information would be available in January 2016 (detailed review at Council Retreat). Councilmember Adams said she had specific questions she would submit to Staff.
#2. 3:13:54 PM A PROPOSED ORDINANCE ENACTING PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE TRANSITION OF NEWLY-ELECTED OFFICIALS INTO OFFICE FOLLOWING A MUNICIPAL ELECTION. The proposed ordinance would formally establish the process and policies for Council Members-Elect and Mayor-Elect during the time between the election and the oath of office. It would also formalize current steps the City takes to provide necessary information to the newly-elected officials, set a standard for future election years and consider funding to pay newly-elected officials during the transition period. View Attachments
Neil Lindberg and Nick Tarbet briefed the Council with attachments. Comments include impact on at-will employees (benefits, severance, etc), respect at-will employees during transition process, effective date of ordinance, large number of employees could be impacted, appointed employees allowed to receive greater benefits than merit employees, flawed compensation system, utilize Compensation Advisory Committee (CAC), potential to use public money for transitions, campaign law restrictions, conflict of interest issues, rules/reporting related to open campaign committees, gap between election day and oath of office, potential to amend existing ordinance, clarify definition of campaign cycle, and create a Transition Committee (potential to transfer funds from campaign committee to transition committee).
Section B: Straw Polls
•Salary for Mayor-elect during transition. Council Members Mendenhall, Penfold, Garrott, Luke, and LaMalfa were in support. Council Members Adams and Rogers were opposed.
•Salary for Councilmember-elect during transition. Council Members Mendenhall, Penfold, Garrott, and LaMalfa were in support. Council Members Luke, Adams, and Rogers were opposed.
•Pay salaries to elected officials at 100%. Council Members Adams, Mendenhall, Penfold, Rogers, and Luke were opposed. Council Members Garrott and LaMalfa were in support.
•Pay salary at 50% for Mayor-elect and Councilmember-elect. Council Members Adams, Mendenhall, Penfold, Garrott, Luke and LaMalfa were in support. Councilmember Rogers was opposed.
•Salaries to begin the day after the Canvass was acted on. Council Members Mendenhall, Penfold, Garrott, Luke, and LaMalfa were in support. Council Members Adams and Rogers were opposed.
•Salary for Mayor-elect Chief of Staff (one position). All Council Members were in support except Councilmember Rogers who abstained.
•Salary for Mayor-elect Staff Assistant (one position). Council Members Adams, Mendenhall, Garrott, Luke, and LaMalfa were in support. Councilmember Penfold was opposed. Councilmember Rogers abstained.
•Salary level of 100% for Mayor-elect Chief of Staff. All Council Members were opposed except Councilmember LaMalfa who was in support.
•Salary level of 50% for Mayor-elect Chief of Staff. All Council Members were in support except Councilmember Rogers who abstained.
•Salary level of 100% for Mayor-elect Staff Assistant. Council Members Adams, Mendenhall, Penfold, Rogers, and Luke were opposed. Council Members Garrott and LaMalfa were in support.
•Salary level of 50% for Mayor-elect Staff Assistant. All Council Members were in support except Councilmember Rogers who abstained.
Discussion was held on not funding Council staff assistants for Councilmember-elects based on past practice. Ms. Gust-Jenson said she would come back to the Council if additional help was needed.
C. Transition expenses:
i) Mayor-Elect
(1) Office space in City Hall or another City-owned temporary office location within a reasonable distance from City Hall (basic space is currently provided based upon tradition)
(2) Expenses for computer & telephone equipment for Mayor and one or more staff members for use during transition.
(3) Expenses to set up the official office of the Mayor elect, once they take office (computers, telephones for staff and any reconfiguration necessary)
ii) Council Members-Elect costs associated in providing:
(1) Mobile device to access meeting/agenda materials (i.e. iPad), telephone. (Currently provided during transition and funded by Council Office budget.)
D. Funding for positions that are interim in nature and would return a City employee back to a position previously filled by that employee, should any such circumstance exist.
E. Funding for portrait of outgoing Mayor.
F. Funding for the benefits of employees who are not retained by a new administration.
G. Confirmation of Mayor’s Office budget as of January 1 to determine whether pro-rata portion of the budget remains to cover the operations for the months of January through June; identify and consider funding for any unusual expenses.
Councilmember Garrott said he wanted to conduct one vote on all items listed above and asked if Council Members had anything they wanted to remove/add. Discussion was held on adding Item H: Additional funding to fully cover costs associated with the transition including (but not limited to) induction and out-going ceremony.
Discussion was held on changing language in C-i-2 to state “one staff member”, “not one or more”.
Straw Poll:
•Support for all items listed under C. Transition expenses with the clarification of C-i-2 and the addition of Item H. All Council Members were in support.
Councilmember Penfold said it would be helpful to have CAC help Council identify how/where the City filled gaps with appointed positions in order to provide competitive benefits.
Councilmember Luke said a stipulation needed to be added that if an elected official chose to accept public transition funding they would not be allowed to supplement that with private donations (potential for other options).
Discussion was held on the following:
2) Information For Newly Elected Officials: After the election the City Administration and the Council will provide information that is public to the Mayor-Elect and Council Members-Elect regarding:
A. Appointed positions.
B. Budget for the appointed positions and associated details including salary grade/rate of pay, and name and contact information for the incumbent.
C. Complete City Budget.
D. Other items can be added based upon suggestions from Council Members/Administration/individuals coming in to office.
Discussion was held to clarify the words “after the election” meant “after the canvass was adopted”.
Straw Poll:
•Support for all items listed under 2) Information for newly elected officials with the clarification changing “after the election” to “after the canvass was adopted”. All Council Members were in support.
Discussion was held on issues relating to Item 3) Facilitating Information Sharing with newly Elected Officials:
Straw Poll:
•Support (in concept) for the creation of a transition officer. Council Members Adams, Mendenhall, Garrott, Luke, and LaMalfa were in support. Councilmember Rogers abstained. Councilmember Penfold was absent for the straw poll.
Discussion was held on Item 1) Funding considerations. Council wanted to include this in the budget process as a potential option.
Straw Poll:
•Support (in principal) for an automatic trigger for consideration in each election year for transition expenses during the budget process. Council Members Adams, Mendenhall, Rogers, Garrott, Luke, and LaMalfa were in support. Councilmember Penfold was absent for the straw poll.
Discussion was held on Councilmember Luke’s concern about accepting donations/funding during the time between when a person was elected and officially took office. Mr. Lindberg said he felt it would be more appropriate to include that issue with the campaign finance ordinance discussion. Councilmember Luke said he supported that direction.
Discussion was held on a potential implementation date for the transition ordinance.
Straw Poll:
•Support for the ordinance to go into effect this year (pay retroactive to the day following the adoption of the canvass). Council Members Mendenhall, Penfold, Garrott, Luke, and LaMalfa were in support. Councilmember Adams was opposed. Councilmember Rogers abstained.
Mr. Tarbet said Staff would incorporate straw polls into the ordinance and prepare motions for consideration on December 8, 2015.
#3. 4:46:33 PM A PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT WOULD AMEND THE FINAL BUDGET OF SALT LAKE CITY, INCLUDING THE EMPLOYMENT STAFFING DOCUMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016. View Attachments Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. Among many other projects, this budget amendment includes funding for:
•design work on fire stations No. 3 and No. 14;
•implementing Enterprise SLC, an effort to improve economic development in the city;
•improving email archiving to improve the efficiency and of public records requests;
•and several other items.
Lehua Weaver, Sylvia Richards, Margaret Plane, and John Vuyk briefed the Council with attachments. Ms. Weaver said she failed to include one item on the Staff report relating to Councilmember LaMalfa’s request from a November briefing to investigate whether impact fees could be used for the 9-Line Park from the Parks Department account. She said Staff was still compiling information for the Council and would include a placeholder in the budget amendment.
Discussion was held on the following items:
1. Transition related:
•Incoming Mayor and staff – depending on the Council’s briefing regarding a Transition ordinance, some funding may be added to this budget amendment.
•ii. Staffing document and budget amendment to increase the number of authorized positions (FTEs) in the Attorney’s office to address employment agreement.
•iii. (An additional item is included below in B1 as an item remaining open.)
Ms. Weaver said Staff would work together to prepare a spreadsheet of estimated costs for the budget and transition ordinances.
2. Street Lighting SAA – $296,793 based on the Council’s November 17th briefing, funding would be transferred to the SAA accounts to reconcile negative balances. This will enable the process for dissolving the SAAs and transferring them to a surcharge account at the utility. Additional steps will be needed, including the funding for operating costs, but those will come later as documents and rate structures are prepared.
Ms. Weaver said an additional $40,000 would be added to help fund the rate study. She said the motion would state that the Council was authorizing the Administration to move forward with reconciling both positive and negative SAA accounts and issuing work orders to perform energy efficiency upgrades where possible. Councilmember Garrott asked if Council Members supported the proposal. No objections were raised.
3. Upcoming Items - Ms. Weaver said this section was added to ensure Council was aware of the current fund balance status.
Discussion was held on Section B – Items remaining open (reasons to keep this budget amendment open until January)
•Transition related expenses for possible leave and separation payouts – still to be determined.
•2. Projects or financial needs that may require quick Council action:
o Fire Station #2 - The Administration has received payments for the repairs to Fire Station No. 2 due to the fire. The Council must approve the use of these funds prior to construction moving forward.
Straw Poll: All Council Members were in support of acting on Fire Station #2 in this budget amendment.
o ii. Dispatch Funding - Council staff has estimated that Dispatch may need funding to get the City back to having ninety percent of the calls answered in 10 seconds or less.
Ms. Weaver said funding amounts were not available and recommended leaving the item open pending a proposal from the Administration.
o iii. Governmental Immunity - The City’s Governmental Immunity Fund will need over $1 million (including an amount for a pending case that could be discussed in Closed Session).
Ms. Gust-Jenson said Staff recommended including Governmental Immunity in this budget amendment to ensure the program did not end the year in a deficit. Straw Poll: Support to address the issue in this budget amendment. All Council Members were in support except Councilmember LaMalfa, who was opposed.
Discussion was held on Section C – Items ready to move forward. Ms. Weaver said this included all items in the original budget transmittal (including Council changes) and items straw polled by Council. She said Staff would prepare motions for Council consideration/approval.
Discussion was held on Legislative Intent Statements:
•I-1 b. Weed Abatement on City-owned Property ($88,350)
The Council expresses the intent to add ongoing funding to the FY 2016-17 annual budget for weed abatement on City-owned property. In response to the 2015 recreation bond discussion public feedback frequently requested weed abatement of City-owned property including rights-of-way, alleyways, and other small distinct parcels. This would also include challenging maintenance areas on rights-of-way adjacent to Foothill Boulevard and Redwood Road. Ongoing funding would allow more frequent proactive maintenance rather than in response to public complaints. The Council requests the Administration include funding for this item in the FY 2016-17 annual budget.
•I-2 Urban Forestry Tree Funding ($250,000)
The Council expresses the intent to add ongoing funding to the FY 2016-17 annual budget for expenses and maintenance related to the City’s urban forest. A diverse range of economic, environmental, quality of life and other benefits are improved by a healthy urban forest. Funding will be used for tree pruning and new tree plantings throughout the City. Additional pruning will improve health and longevity of trees as well as decrease the chance of branch failure. New tree plantings will help sustain the City’s urban forest by replacing at least as many trees as the City removes. The Council requests the Administration include funding for this item in the FY 2016-17 annual budget.
Ms. Weaver said motions would be prepared for December 8, 2015.
#4. 5:06:32 PM A PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT WOULD AMEND DEFINITIONS FOR ASSISTED LIVING AND OTHER SIMILAR FACILITIES AND THE CITY’S LAND USE TABLES TO ALLOW ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES IN MORE ZONING DISTRICTS. These changes will align City zoning definitions with state law and will remove duplicate information. The amendment will also address a temporary land use regulation, adopted on June 16, 2015, pertaining to facilities that provide end of life care and respite care. Related provisions of Title 21A, Zoning, may also be amended as part of this petition. Petitioner - Mayor Ralph Becker, Petition No. PLNPCM2014-00388 and Salt Lake City Council - Temporary Land Use Regulations; Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 26 of 2015. View Attachments
Nick Tarbet, Neil Lindberg, Michaela Oktay, Katia Pace, and Nora Shepard briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included potential for legislative intents statements, review interpretation process, determine level of Administrative flexibility, align City Code with State/Federal requirements, cap number of facilities at 25 in Institutional Zones, determine proximity to other similar facilities, potential impact on “religious” related providers, principal versus accessory/ancillary uses, permitted or conditional uses, and definition and other issues relating to “convents”.
Straw Polls:
•Support for the following items as outlined in the transmittal: 1) Group Home definition, 2) “Residential Support definition”, 3) “Assisted Living definitions”, 4) “eliminate duplicative/outdated definitions” and 5) “added definitions”. All Council Members were in favor.
•Support for Eleemosynary definition as outlined in the handout. All Council Members were in favor, except Councilmember Adams who was opposed.
•Support to amend definition of “convent” to clarify it was exclusively for residential use. Council Members Adams, Mendenhall, Penfold, Garrott, and LaMalfa were opposed. Council Members Rogers and Luke were in favor.
•Support to amend “Family and Nursing Care Facility” definitions to maintain consistency with proposed code changes. All Council Members were in favor.
•Support to consider maximum occupancy cap for housing uses, including Eleemosynary (anyone providing housing for individuals) in the Institutional Zone (cap of 25 and spacing requirement of no closer than 800-feet). Council Members Luke, Garrott, Adams, and Rogers were opposed. Council Members Mendenhall, Penfold, and LaMalfa were in favor.
Further discussion was held on determining an appropriate cap for the number of facilities that would be allowed in the Institutional Zone.
Ms. Shepard said she wanted the Council to give the Administration legislative direction to analyze the Institutional Zone for compatibility with adjacent residential uses along with a variety of other issues and through that process Planning could develop some criteria for Council consideration.
Discussion was held on Item 2 – develop a definition/land use classification for the Inn Between model. Initiate legislative action asking the Administration to process a petition that would create a definition/land use category for service providers like the Inn Between. The issue would receive a full vetting through the public process, including planning commission review.
The legislative action could include the following:
•Create a definition that would be appropriate for the Inn Between model
•Consider which zones are appropriate for this facility
•Consider including small and large facilities to the appropriate zones
•Consider modifying max occupancy cap in Institutional zone if appropriate
•spacing requirements (added)
•
Straw Poll: Support for legislative intent as outlined in Item 2. All Council Members were in favor.
Discussion was held on Item 3 - Review of Assisted Living Facility Compatibility. During the Work Session briefing some questions were raised about the compatibility of assisted living facilities in the Institutional zone. Based on those questions, staff is recommending that the Council initiate a legislative action.
The legislative action could include the following:
•Request a review of compatibility concerns of assisted living facilities in the Institutional zone, adjacent to residential neighborhoods.
•Evaluate and consider potential design standards that would address compatibility concerns
•Consider the zoning and density standards of surrounding neighborhood (Evaluate how to consider potential impacts on surrounding community)
•Consider whether conditional use standards specific to this type of use may enhance the compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods.
Straw Poll: Support for legislative intent as outlined in Item 3. All Council Members were in favor.
Discussion was held on the following: In the first briefing, Council Staff raised the possibility of the Council considering a legislative action that would initiate a review of the City’s administrative review process. It has been argued that the administrative interpretation process could be perceived as a delegation of legislative zoning authority that the Council may wish to retain. (The information from the first briefing is provided directly below for reference.)
Does the Council wish to further consider this proposal?
•While working on the code amendments for assisted living and other related facilities, a question arose about whether authority for administrative interpretations should be amended or removed from City code (Chapter 21A.12, Salt Lake City Code). At times, this process has been perceived as having inadequate standards that have allowed incompatible land uses to be established in some zones. The intent is to prohibit administrative interpretations from allowing uses not identified as permitted or conditional in the City’s land use tables. Instead, a text amendment would be required in order for a use to be allowed in a particular zone. Deciding what land uses are allowed in the City’s zones is a policy decision for the Council. Restricting administrative interpretations will avoid allowing land uses not expressly identified in the zoning ordinance and will ensure policy making authority is maintained by the Council. If the Council is supportive of this legislative action, staff will prepare the legislative action and motion sheet to be considered for adoption during the next Council meeting.
Straw Poll: Councilmember Garrott said the straw poll was expressing the Council’s interest in tightening the standards for administrative review and proposals that went in that direction. All Council Members were in favor.
#5. 6:05:51 PM AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD AMEND CHAPTER 21A.44, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO OFF STREET PARKING REGULATIONS PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. PLNPCM2015-00430. Under the proposal: View Attachments
•one parking space would be required per unit in mixed use and multifamily developments in the following zoning districts: Community Business (CB), Neighborhood Commercial (CN), Residential/Mixed Use District (R-MU-35) and Residential/Mixed Use District (R-MU-45). Currently, those zoning districts only require a half space per unit.
•maximum parking allowances would be removed for the Light Manufacturing (M-1), Heavy Manufacturing (M-2), and Business Park (BP) zoning districts, which are generally located west of Redwood Road;
•language regarding Transportation Demand Management would be clarified; and
•text and formatting changes will be made to provide clarity. Related provisions of Title 21A, Zoning, may also be amended as part of this petition. (Petitioner - Mayor Ralph Becker)
Nick Tarbet, J.P. Goates, and Nora Shepard briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included considering one stall per bedroom instead of one stall per unit, lift maximums on City’s westside, improve economic development environment, and impact of Transit Master Plan and future development/urban environment.
Straw Poll on following bullet points:
•One parking space would be required per unit in mixed use and multifamily developments in the following zoning districts: Community Business (CB), Neighborhood Commercial (CN), Residential/Mixed Use District (RMU-35) and Residential/Mixed Use District (R-MU-45).
•Maximum parking allowances would be removed for the Manufacturing and Business Park zoning districts.
•Language regarding Transportation Demand Management maximum parking would be clarified.
•Text and formatting changes will be made to provide clarity.
All Council Members were in favor.
Mr. Tarbet said Staff would prepare motions for December 8, 2015.
#6. A PROPOSAL REGARDING POTENTIAL CHANGES TO LOCAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE REQUIREMENTS. Presentation of research on historical campaign contribution amounts in Salt Lake City. View Attachments
Item pulled.
#7. A PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS BEFORE THE COUNCIL THAT WOULD ADOPT THE PLAN SALT LAKE GENERAL PLAN PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. PLNPCM2011-00682. Plan Salt Lake is a citywide master plan designed to create high-level policies and vision that will guide the City and its respective neighborhoods for the next 20 years. The Council has received regular updates as the plan has progressed. (Petitioner - Mayor Ralph Becker) View Attachments
Item pulled.
#8. 6:13:09 PM A REQUEST BY THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (SNB) ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW SINGLE-PRACTITIONER MEDICAL, DENTAL, AND HEALTH OFFICES AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE SNB ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. PLNPCM2015-00644. The amendment would affect Sections 21A.33 and 21A.62 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Related sections of Title 21A may also be amended as part of this proposal. The proposal will modify the table of uses permitted in the SNB district as well as create a new definition for that use. The changes would apply citywide. (Petitioner - Salt Lake City Council) View Attachments
Nick Tarbet, Anthony Riederer, and Nora Shepard briefed the Council with attachments. Mr. Riederer said an additional recommendation was to change the definition from “single practitioner per suite” to “single practitioner on a single parcel”. Straw Poll: Support to advance the proposal as recommended by the Administration. All Council Members were in favor. Mr. Tarbet said a public hearing was scheduled for December 8, 2015.
#9. THE HOMELESS SITE EVALUATION COMMISSION WAS FORMED BY THE ADMINISTRATION IN JANUARY 2015 TO REVIEW AND EVALUATE THE CURRENT SITE AND CONFIGURATION OF THE CITY'S HOMELESS SERVICES. The Administration provides periodic updates to the Council about the progress of the Commission. View Attachments
Item pulled.
#10. COUNCIL POLICY FOR TRAVEL FEES, LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE, TICKETED EVENTS, AND NEWSLETTERS. View Attachments
Item pulled.
#11. 6:14:34 PM A PROPOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR THE CULTURAL CORE MASTER PLAN. The RFP would award a contract to develop and implement a downtown Cultural Core master plan that includes programs to enliven the area and attract locals and visitors, place-making to strengthen the identity of the area, and promotional initiatives to build the brand and communicate information to locals and visitors. View Attachments
Katherine Potter, Holly Yocom, and Martha Barton briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included potential role of funding bodies in the master plan process, six-month process to prepare master plan, funding not to be used for capital investments, how to accommodate other arts/cultures facilities located outside funding boundaries, expenditure area larger than collection area, and address diversity needs Citywide.
Ms. Potter said the final master plan would be presented to City and County Councils for approval and an annual budget allocation would be made based on master plan findings. Councilmember Penfold expressed concerns about art functions which were part of the City but might not be captured in the proposal. He said accommodations needed to be made for those broader arts components. Councilmember LaMalfa said he wanted to be assured that arts promotion in downtown would include people of diverse backgrounds.
Councilmember Garrott asked if Ms. Potter needed the Council to approve a funding appropriation. Ms. Potter said a resolution was prepared to address funding. Councilmember Garrott said the Council could determine whether a budget amendment was needed.
#12. 6:27:49 PM INTERVIEW JULIE BJORNSTAD PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ADVISORY BOARD FOR A TERM EXTENDING THROUGH JUNE 4, 2018. View Attachments
Councilmember Garrott said Ms. Bjornstad’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration.
#13. A PROPOSAL THAT WOULD AMEND THE CITY’S SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE ITEMS REGULATIONS. The proposed changes include requiring businesses and multi-family complexes to establish recycling programs, and updating the fine schedule for noncompliance with refuse, recycling and green waste collection laws. View Attachments
Item pulled.
#14. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
No discussion was held.
#15. 2:07:21 PM REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 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, including but not limited to:
•Timeline for scheduling board appointments;
•Scheduling Items View Announcements
See File M 15-5 for announcements.
#16. 2:27:21 PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE TO DISCUSS ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED, UTAH CODE §78B-1-137 AND 52-4-205(A) DISCUSSION OF CHARACTER, PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE, OR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH OF AN INDIVIDUAL. (CLOSED SESSION HELD IN ROOM 326)
Councilmember Mendenhall moved and Councilmember LaMalfa seconded to enter into Closed Session to discuss Attorney-Client matters that are privileged, Utah Code §78B-1-137, and 52-4-205(a) discussion of character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual, Utah Open and Public Meetings Law. A roll call vote was taken. Council Members Mendenhall, Penfold, LaMalfa, Rogers, Adams, Luke, and Garrott voted aye. See File M 15-2 for Sworn Statement.
In Attendance: Council Members Rogers, LaMalfa, Garrott, Mendenhall, Luke, Adams, and Penfold.
Others in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Margaret Plane, Sean Murphy, Boyd Ferguson, Gina Chamness, Neil Lindberg, Nick Tarbet, Nichol Bourdeaux, Russell Weeks, Lehua Weaver, Dan Weist, and Scott Crandall.
The Closed Session adjourned at 3:02 p.m.
The Work Session meeting adjourned at 6:30 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 December 1, 2015.
sc