The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, December 4, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street.
In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Kyle LaMalfa, Luke Garrott, Jill Remington Love, Charlie Luke and Søren Simonsen.
Absent: Councilmember Stan Penfold.
Also In Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Jennifer Bruno, Executive Council Deputy Director; David Everitt, Mayor’s Chief of Staff; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney; Russell Weeks, Council Senior Policy Analyst; Karen Halladay, Council Policy Analyst; Nick Tarbet, Council Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Orion Goff, Building Official; Lehua Weaver, Council Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Alexandra Hesse, Leonardo Executive Director; Natalie Odery, International Rescue Committee (IRC) Development Manager; Emy Maloutas, Parks and Public Lands Director; John Naser, City Engineer; David Hart, MOCA Systems; Mary Beth Thompson, Revenue Analyst/Auditing Manager; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Nole Walkingshaw, Planning Program Supervisor; Jim Lewis, Public Utilities Finance Administrator; Thomas Ward, Public Utilities Deputy Director; Vicki Bennett, Sustainability Director; Linda Hamilton, Library Transition Director; Jace Bunting, Library Finance Manager; and Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder.
Councilmember Simonsen presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 2:07 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. 2:07:36 PM RECEIVE AN UPDATE FROM DAVID HART, FAIA, VICE PRESIDENT/REGIONAL MANAGER OF MOCA SYSTEMS, REGARDING PROGRESS ON THE CITY’S NEW PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES. View Attachments
David Hart briefed the Council with a PowerPoint presentation. He said a tour could be arranged for any Council Members who were interested. Councilmember Christensen said in retrospect, were there things that should/could have been done differently. Mr. Hart said post-construction analysis was important and would report back to the Council after he reviewed the project with staff. Councilmember Simonsen said additional updates would be scheduled next year.
#2. 2:27:59 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 1 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-13. BUDGET AMENDMENTS HAPPEN SEVERAL TIMES EACH YEAR TO REFLECT ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CITY’S BUDGETS, INCLUDING PROPOSED PROJECT ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS. This amendment contains a number of proposed adjustments to the budget, including: (Note: for complete list see attached transmittal)
•Two recommended Fire Department studies; one study for Fire Station No. 3 in Sugar House, and one to review current service levels and assist in the development or modification of service levels to ensure safe and effective responses for fire suppression, emergency medical services, and specialty response situations.
•Study for a crime lab and evidence storage facility.
•Wetland mitigation at the Regional Athletic Complex.
•Mid-year adjustments for the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility (the “Landfill”) – refer to (Item C5)
•Changes to the scope and funding for the remodel of the City’s Plaza 349 building. (Item D1) View Attachments
Karen Halladay, Jennifer Bruno, Lehua Weaver, John Naser, Linda Hamilton, Jace Bunting, Emy Maloutas, Vicki Bennett, Rick Graham, Alexandra Hesse, LuAnn Clark and Natalie Odery briefed the Council.
•A-12: Crime Lab and Evidence Storage Development Consultant – ($110,616 – Source: General Fund) Ms. Weaver said changes were made to the intent statement.
•A-16: ESCO for Parks – ($6,455,386 – Source CIP Fund) Ms. Weaver said a draft motion was prepared for the Council.
•A-20: RDA Open Space Funding for Hidden Hollow Revitalization Project – ($34,456 – Source CIP Fund) A majority of the Council was in favor of receiving $34,456 from the RDA and allocating approximately $63,000 from fund balance to CIP toward the project with the understanding that both amounts would require a 100% donor match in order to fund the entire project at approximately $195,000. The Council also wanted an administrative update within 18-months identifying donations with the understanding that matches would be in place before construction began.
•B-2: State of Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ) Jurisdictions with Halfway Houses Grant – ($238,377 – Source: Miscellaneous Grant Fund) Ms. Weaver said legislative intent language was drafted for Council consideration.
•D-7: 2012/13 Budget Adjustment: North Temple Boulevard Iconic Art Pieces and Betterments ($450,000 – Source: CIP Fund) Discussion was held on improving pedestrian connectivity with six-foot sidewalks along 600-1000 West 200 South and Euclid and installing additional benches at train crossings. Councilmember LaMalfa said he would provide specific locations. A majority of the Council was in favor of proceeding with the items discussed.
•D-17: Library Items ($133,500 – Source: Library Fund) Councilmember Garrott asked about potential replacement for deteriorating carpet/furniture. Ms. Hamilton said that was a policy priority for the upcoming budget. Councilmember Garrott suggested the Library utilize the City’s lighter, quicker, cheaper philosophy and consider installing outdoor tables, chairs, umbrellas, etc. for summer use. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the City was in charge of the plaza and would be responsible for any costs.
A majority of the Council was in favor of receiving notification for contingency expenditures exceeding $20,000 but expenditures exceeding $50,000 would require Council approval through a budget amendment. Ms. Weaver said staff would come back to the Council next year with the same parameters. Councilmember Simonsen said legislative intent language could be used to facilitate the development of an ordinance or resolution.
•I-2 Leonardo Kitchen Facilities – (Amount TBD, $155,000 - $255,000 Source: CIP Fund) Would Council Members support adding money to the CIP fund budget for kitchen facilities at The Leonardo? Ms. Weaver said there were cost implications associated with the incubator project idea and any changes would need further review.
Discussion included liability issues, creating an incubator kitchen in a public market, contributions/funding sources, loading dock requirements, large community need for incubator kitchen, 24-hour access kitchen, numerous organizations wanted to participate/partner and lease agreement logistics.
Councilmember LaMalfa said he thought the food policy task force board needed to be included in the overall development/growth of the incubator kitchen project. Mr. Everitt said he had some reservations about moving too quickly and suggested developing a Request for Proposal (RFP) that might produce some compelling business plans/locations.
Councilmember Simonsen asked if Council Members objected to moving forward with the Leonardo kitchen with the understanding that it would be done as a loan and moving forward with the incubator kitchen concept as part of the Leonardo. No objections were raised.
Councilmember Simonsen suggested holding a follow-up discussion on January 8, 2013 so Council/Administrative questions/concerns could be addressed such as obtaining design estimates for shared space, lease arrangements, management structure for incubator kitchen, proceeding with build-out, fund raising/partnerships, identify process for moving forward and exploring RFP options. He asked Council Members to give staff their ideas/concerns so they could be included in legislative intent or motion language.
•I-3: Carryover of Council Communication Funds ($699 Source: General Fund) Ms. Weaver said the Council already reached an agreement about this and staff would move forward unless additional issues were raised.
Discussion included updating charging equipment, reimbursement potential, costs associated with a large number of users, prior legislative intent to review parking ordinance/develop criteria for installing charging stations, one charging station per large lot, comprehensive Citywide review, electricity belonged to Rocky Mountain Power and explore ways to charge more for providing parking space/service.
Mr. Graham said there was updated information including potential costs that he would share with the Council. Ms. Gust-Jenson said there was additional information from the Administration she would provide the Council.
Councilmember Simonsen said the budget amendment was scheduled for action during the formal meeting but suggested delaying adoption until all appropriate changes could be made. A majority of the Council was in favor.
Ms. Clark and Ms. Chamness asked if the Council would consider approving the following items during the formal meeting: 1) Emergency Shelter Grant funding, and 2) South Davis Study proposal. A majority of the Council was in favor.
Councilmember Simonsen asked staff to prepare new motions for the formal meeting.
#3. 3:48:15 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY’S ZONING REGULATIONS RELATING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS (BUSINESSES OPERATED OUT OF HOMES) PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. PLNPCM2011-00380. The purpose of the proposed changes is to clarify the current regulations and close loopholes. The proposed amendments would:
•Remove the list of permitted/conditional home occupations and update the list of prohibited uses (This would allow a range of home occupations to be considered subject to compliance with business licensing requirements and specific zoning standards.)
•Revise the standards and regulations for permitting and terminating home occupations.
Related provisions of Title 21A, Zoning, may also be amended as part of this petition. Petitioner - Mayor Ralph Becker. View Attachments
Nick Tarbet, Noel Walkingshaw and Mary Beth Thompson briefed the Council. Discussion was held on issues relating to application fees. A majority of the Council was in favor of eliminating the fee. Councilmember Simonsen said a public hearing was scheduled for December 11, 2012.
#4. 4:33:14 PM HOLD A FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION WITH THE ADMINISTRATION REGARDING THE CITY’S LANDLORD/TENANT PROGRAM. THE CITY HAS IMPLEMENTED SOME CHANGES TO THE PROGRAM SINCE ITS INCEPTION, REGARDING TRAINING, INSPECTIONS, SETTING THE FEE, AND OTHER PIECES. View Attachments
Lehua Weaver, David Everitt, Mary Beth Thompson, Orion Goff, Ed Rutan and Neil Lindberg briefed the Council with handouts. Ms. Weaver said staff prepared a memo to address questions/concerns raised by Council Members but further direction was needed so staff could provide additional follow-up.
Discussion included how often inspections should be done, implications of House Bill 216, inspections done on complaint basis, provide maximum flexibility in new proposal, avoid random inspections, utilize resources effectively, consistency needed in business licensing practice, life/safety issues, allowing waivers, landlords were told the City would not do inspections, fairness/consistency needed with inspections and enforcement, budget impacts to perform inspections and significant public policy implications.
Mr. Lindberg said House Bill 216 prohibited random inspections so other options could be explored such as performing inspections in conjunction with annual license renewals or doing inspections every second or third year. He said waiver options could be considered with annual inspections. He said administrative costs associated with the proposal needed to be addressed and the Administration was currently evaluating options on how to proceed.
Councilmember Garrott said he was frustrated with conflicting interpretations made about this issue. He said there were significant policy implications/other impacts regarding how property inspections were implemented/administered and requested the Administration provide a history of the chain of events/decisions that led to the current proposal. Mr. Rutan said he would research the issue and report back to the Council.
Straw Poll: A majority of the Council was in favor of requiring inspections once every three years with the understanding inspections could be done more frequently on a complaint basis and no waivers.
Councilmember LaMalfa said he wanted to know how many rental units had let their registration lapse since the ordinance was implemented. Ms. Thompson said she would provide the information.
Councilmember Christensen requested an update about the new training program and how many landlords had taken the City’s online version versus the Apartment Association’s version or some other method.
Councilmember Simonsen said discussion on additional bullet points would be scheduled for a follow-up briefing and asked Council Members to let staff/Administration know what information/questions they wanted to have addressed. Councilmember Garrott said he wanted information about the Apartment Association’s training and cost recovery.
#5. 5:21:20 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING A PROPOSED FEE-GENERATED STREET LIGHTING ENTERPRISE FUND THAT WOULD PAY FOR STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE.
•The proposal would charge a monthly fee of $3.73 for all single, duplex and triplex residential units.
•Commercial and industrial customers and multifamily residences that are larger than triplexes would be charged $3.73 monthly for each 75 feet of front footage.
An estimated $3.6 million would be generated should the fee program be adopted. The proposed fee would not result in a corresponding drop in property taxes. Funding for street lighting currently comes from the general fund, which is funded through annual property taxes. (Item C8) View Attachments
Russell Weeks, Lehua Weaver, David Everitt, Jim Lewis and Tom Ward briefed the Council with handouts.
Discussion included offset costs for private lights, committee recommended fees, more cost efficient to install lighting now, long-term investment, effective public communication, install data on website, determine how to move ahead with environmental conversions, use current technology/equipment for upgrades/replacements, maximize savings through funding options, 10% of current lighting system out of service, potential to maintain or even decrease fees, potential to provide hardship waivers, Red-Cross discounts/assistance and non-service abatements.
Mr. Ward said the Council would receive quarterly updates regarding the lighting system inventory and community engagement efforts. Councilmember Luke said data needed to be available on the website so residents could easily access proposed changes and see projected savings. He also requested information about the potential for decreasing costs over time. Mr. Ward said they would include that information with the quarterly updates.
#6. 5:50:24 PM HOLD A FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION TO THE SEPTEMBER 25, 2012 COUNCIL RETREAT CONFIRMING STAFF’S UNDERSTANDING OF THE AREAS UPON WHICH THERE IS COUNCIL AGREEMENT REGARDING THE MASTER PLAN PROCESS. View Attachments
Cindy Gust-Jenson briefed the Council. Straw Polls were taken on the following statements.
1. Be open to an entire re‐engineering of the public process that could include significant changes to the current process, to the point that the proposed process may not resemble the existing process. A majority of the Council was in favor.
2. Focus City‐wide policy statements in the City‐wide plan (the Plan Salt Lake effort), rather than duplicating them in localized plans. A majority of the Council was in favor.
3. Streamline the Master Plan process to:
•Reduce the amount of time it takes to develop and process plans.
•Make the plans more action‐oriented and user‐friendly (simple, easy to read and reference) so that they can inform the development process and make the City’s processes more predictable.
Councilmember Garrott said he felt the second bullet point did not mean streamlining and suggested making it a separate number. A majority of the Council was in favor of making it number four (4).
4. Assure that the full Council’s policy input is included early in the process so that it can be incorporated into broad community outreach efforts.
•Keep the framework broad enough to avoid creating rework and limiting options for elected officials.
•Include an opportunity for initial City Council input and then check‐in at various points in the process. (See attached list of processes where this approach has worked.)
Discussion on this item included how to reconcile the difference between Council providing input versus directing the public process, outline expectation process, broaden not constrain issues, clarify that Council input early in the process was not meant to predetermine outcome, straw polls could be viewed as predetermining an outcome rather than just raising issues, final decisions made by Council, developing public policy was responsibility of legislative body, utilize broad framework so all ideas raised by Council could be part of the process and give planners discretion about how to incorporate Council Members input/ideas.
Councilmember LaMalfa suggested modifying the statement to clarify the intention was not to determine what plans should be.
5. Use master plans as a resource and implementation tool for the capital improvement (CIP) process. A majority of the Council was in favor.
6. Enhance the public process for Master Plans to:
•Continue to broaden public input.
•Reach traditionally under‐represented communities and interest groups to better represent the diversity of the City.
•Retain and enhance ‘deep’ participation from constituents familiar with the City.
•Use technology in creative way.
A majority of the Council was in favor of the proposed language with the exception that the words “familiar with the City” be removed from the third bullet point.
Discussion was held on tying plan updates to election cycles, other frequency issues and number of plans needed/contemplated in business nodes/neighborhoods. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the Administration was working on this simultaneously with the Council and would probably provide an update on January 8, 2013.
Councilmember LaMalfa said he thought in prior Council discussions, there was consensus on exploring smaller area plans. Councilmember Simonsen said there was also discussion about defining different plan types from Citywide comprehensive to small level. Ms. Gust-Jenson said those issues were not included in the document but could be added at the Council’s direction along with a list of potential first steps identified by the Council. Councilmember Simonsen said Council Members input was needed before January 8, 2013 if the intent was to forward this document to Community and Economic Development. Ms. Gust-Jenson said she would e-mail information/list to the Council and add this piece to next week’s announcements.
A majority of the Council agreed that eight planning areas were too big and asked staff to add that to the consensus list.
#7. 6:30:49 PM 6:32:00 PM DISCUSS THE GUIDING PHILOSOPHY STATEMENTS THEY ADOPTED OVER THE PAST YEAR. THE PHILOSOPHY STATEMENTS WILL SET A VISION FOR FUTURE DECISION MAKING REGARDING HISTORIC PRESERVATION, HOUSING, THE ECONOMIC HEALTH OF THE CITY, ARTS AND CULTURE, NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY OF LIFE, TRANSPARENCY, TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE, SUSTAINABILITY, AND EDUCATION. View Attachments
Councilmember Simonsen said it was the Council’s intent to publish the attached statement and forward it to the Administration as part of the “Plan Salt Lake” initiative. Councilmember LaMalfa said he thought the statements needed to have a similar look and feel before publication.
#8. (TENTATIVE) DISCUSS THE CITY’S CURRENT INFILL ORDINANCE AND POTENTIAL CHANGES. A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE MAY PRESENT INFORMATION ON THE COUNTY’S PROCESS. View Attachments
Item not held.
#9. (TENTATIVE) RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE ENACTING NEW CHAPTER 3.65, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO THE NAMING OF CITY ASSETS. View Attachments & View Attachments
Item not held.
#10. 8:51:30 PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. View Attachments
See file M 12-5 for announcements.
#11. 9:00:14 PM REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR, INCLUDING AN UPDATE ON COUNCIL INTEREST ITEMS AND A REPORT OF MEETINGS WITH THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR OF VARIOUS CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
No issues were discussed.
#12. (TENTATIVE) CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE § 52-4-204, FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: a) DISCUSSION OF THE CHARACTER, PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE, OR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH OF AN INDIVIDUAL, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205(1)(a); b) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1)(b); c) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205(1)(d); d) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205(1)(c); e) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) IF (1) PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, (2) THE CITY PREVIOUSLY GAVE NOTICE THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE OFFERED FOR SALE, AND (3) THE TERMS OF THE SALE ARE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED BEFORE THE CITY APPROVES THE SALE; f)FOR ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 78B-1-137; g) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS DEPLOYMENT OF SECURITY PERSONNEL, DEVICES OR SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205(1)(f); AND h) A SESSION TO INVESTIGATE PROCEEDINGS REGARDING ALLEGATIONS OF CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205(1)(g).
Item not held.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 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 the entire content.
This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held December 4, 2012.
sc