The City Council met in a Retreat on Tuesday, February 11, 2014, at 3:11 p.m. at the City & County Building, Room 326, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City.
In Attendance: Council Members Charlie Luke, James Rogers, Kyle LaMalfa, Luke Garrott, Erin Mendenhall, Stan Penfold, and Lisa Adams.
Also In Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive Director; Ralph Becker, Mayor; David Everitt, Mayor’s Chief of Staff; Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Director; Neil Lindberg, Council Legal Director; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Sean Murphy, Council Policy Analyst; Dan Weist, Council Communication Director; Allison Rowland, Council Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Policy Analyst; Amber McClellan, Council Constituent Liaison; Nick Tarbet, Council Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Jan Aramaki, Council Policy Analyst; Becky Dangerfield, Council Staff Assistant; Tracey Fletcher, Council Staff Assistant; ObReaee Israelsson, Council Staff Assistant; Margaret Plane, City Attorney; and Cindi Mansell, City Recorder.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. The meeting was called to order at 3:11 p.m.
1. Welcome.
Councilmember Luke welcomed those present and outlined the Council Retreat agenda details. He said he needed to leave the meeting briefly and Vice Chair Garrott would take over during his absence. View Attachment
2. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Introduction to Council Legislative Tools.View Attachments
Mr. Lindberg briefed the Council on Legislative versus Executive (Administrative) Powers. He reviewed UCA §10-3b-203 Council in a Council-Mayor form of government; §10-3b-202 Mayor in Council-Mayor form of government; and §10-8-84 Ordinances, rules, and regulations – passage – penalties. Discussion followed regarding Legislative Tools in the form of budget, ordinances, review City Administration, transacting Council business, Advocacy/Public engagement, reviewing what others have done; and relationships with others.
The question was raised relative to intervals and the form information could be provided, with Mr. Lindberg stating this could be defined within ordinance and that he was unsure as to current stipulations. He said the Council had the ability to request/receive the same information as Administration.
Discussion followed regarding the budget process and the Council being involved at the end of the process. Vice Chair Garrott expressed concern the Council was unaware of what goes on within individual areas, funding or equally-competing priorities, project status, etc.
Mr. Lindberg referenced a publication by The Government Finance Officers Association entitled “Anatomy of a Priority-Driven Budget Process”. He said this could prove helpful in how the Council continues to build on their Philosophy Statements created last year. He said the next logical step was to consider how to operationalize those goals. He said the Council should request reports or information should they have questions. He referenced the City of Dallas and their Performance Objectives and highlighted specific broad performance measures to determine whether City Services were being delivered in accordance with the Council’s Policy objectives. It was stated this had only been traditionally performed during the budget process.
Councilmember Penfold said Administration should be approached to determine whether they had sufficient resources (whether financial or operational) to complete priorities before being established. He said the budget process does not allow time to prioritize items and it becomes a debate. Discussion followed regarding the quality of reporting the Council could push to receive. Mr. Lindberg said the Council could adopt specific ordinances outlining the detail, format, frequency, and content of information.
Ms. Gust-Jenson discussed the huge opportunity for collaboration in this regard. She said initially, as everyone was prioritizing their needs, the base reporting tools were last to get funded. She said that brought back discussion whether those tools help make decisions, increase transparency, and were worthwhile to fund, etc. Discussion followed regarding how to define measures associated with successful outcome.
Chair Luke said the Chair and Vice Chair had discussed a new reporting process for Council staff to require quarterly reports and priority status updates. Discussion followed regarding the concept and whether it would be realistic for the Council to undertake a complete departmental review of the budget. Vice Chair Garrott said currently, performance measures were brief and buried in the budget book; he requested those be drawn out and reported as part of the budget process. The concept of zero-based budgeting was suggested or even a 2-3 year budget review cycle, with concern expressed about the amount of time that type of process would require of a part-time body.
Ms. Weaver explained there were some department priorities not included within the budget; staff could gather and distribute information. She said this type of new process might not gain momentum until the next year budget development process but could encourage departments to compile and track policy to enable the Council to make determinations across the City. She suggested other measurement opportunities or establishing a process to enable the Council to render balancing decisions.
Ms. Gust-Jenson said in terms of bringing performance measures into the budget review, Council Staff was able to successfully begin to move in that direction last year and the input provided today would be very helpful with that process.
3. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Council Review & Selection of 2014 Priority Projects.
Ms. Gust-Jenson reviewed Council Staff workload and the need for balance with the annual large priorities, items voted on throughout the year, petitions filed, as well as individual priorities. She referenced the new quarterly report process to begin in April and the goal for staff and administrative clarity. She referenced a project scope/table template and Council Tools & Strength in Numbers Table relative to resources, options, and formal actions.
Policy Analyst Weaver referenced the Project Listing relative to the Council Philosophy Statements. She briefly explained the process, lists, and suggested parameters to result in three projects to recommend to Administration as well as three projects for Council Staff. She said this would involve a refining process for competing projects. She said staff would check in with Council Members following the retreat regarding those other projects that were important to them.
Council Members individually reviewed their written project lists.
Councilmember Penfold described his list as follows:
•Concur with Councilmember LaMalfa to conduct a voter opinion poll to ban plastic bags.
•The Cemetery property of the City was considered Open Space and has considerable infrastructure needs that should be addressed (irrigation, restrooms, curb, gutter, streets).
Ms. Weaver said these concepts were not foreign to staff. She explained the first phase of the Cemetery Master Plan process was completed several years ago and would require review and update.
The Council took at break at 5:30 p.m.
The meeting readjourned at 5:59 p.m.
Discussion followed regarding the project list in summary and how to distinguish which could be for Administration and which for Council Staff. It was determined each Councilmember would have 6 votes (3 Administrative/3 Legislative). Time was allowed for various votes.
Votes were taken with the final unanimous Straw Poll results as follows:
Administrative Priorities
1. Cemetery – future planning and assessment of capital needs, infrastructure repair/replacement, long term management of open space, financing, etc.
2. Snow Removal on City Sidewalks – treat sidewalks and City Streets equally.
3. Campaign Finance Reform – review/possible amendments regarding corporate contributions and contribution limits.
Council Staff Priorities
1. Urban Trail System - reprioritizing and accelerating for Planning and Development.
2. Air Quality – explore and create policy while finding opportunities to expand the policy through collaboration with other municipalities, possibly forming an Air Shed Coalition.
3. Public Services – accounting for services, maintenance costs, etc. by location and function.
Council Executive Director Gust-Jenson said Staff would return with implementation options, outline how they fit into the Council Philosophies or challenges associated, and how they could fit into the holistic picture to implement goals.
The Council discussed the accomplishment of narrowing and determining six strong achievable policy driven priorities.
The meeting adjourned at 6:33 p.m.
This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as additional discussion may have been held; please refer to the audio for the entire content.
This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Retreat meeting held February 11, 2014.
clm