The City Council met to conduct a Planning Workshop on Tuesday, February 17, 2015, at 12:48 p.m. at The Leonardo, Third Floor Event Center, 209 East 500 South, 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 Consultant; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Sean Murphy, Council Policy Analyst; Dan Weist, Council Communication Director; Molly Farmer, Council Constituent Liaison; Kira Castagno, Council Staff Assistant; Allison Rowland, Council Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Policy Analyst; Amber McClellan, Council Constituent Liaison; Nick Tarbet, Council Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Brian Fullmer, Council Constituent Liaison; Jan Aramaki, Council Policy Analyst; Ben Luedtke, Council Constituent Liaison; Becky Dangerfield, Council Staff Assistant; Tracey Fletcher, Council Staff Assistant; Nora Shepard, Planning Director; Margaret Plane, City Attorney; and Cindi Mansell, City Recorder.
The meeting was called to order at 12:49 p.m.
1. 12:49:28 PM Welcome and Introduction.
Councilmember Garrott welcomed those present and outlined the Council Planning Workshop agenda details.
2. 12:53:27 PM Council Staff Workload.
Ms. Gust-Jenson reviewed Council Staff Workload items and the need for balance with the annual large priorities, items voted on throughout the year, petitions filed, and individual priorities. She said when the Council identified priorities it really allowed Staff to bring that concept and focus to their work. She said there were always surprise items beyond Council or Staff control as well as land use petitions, budget, annual audit, natural items such as ordinance cleanup and agenda items, public notices, constituents, office operations, scheduling, policy updating, public engagement/outreach, items of interest to individual Council Members, or items with multiple Council Member interest. She clarified that previous priorities could be switched for higher priorities or carried forward.
3. 1:02:59 PM Report of 2014 Council Priority Projects.
Ms. Weaver offered a brief recap of 2014 Council Priorities; including air quality, urban trails, cemetery funding/future use, Public Services cost accounting system, snow removal on sidewalks, and campaign finance. She further discussed tangibles accomplished (specific to Air Quality and Urban Trails) and said varying progress was made. Councilmember LaMalfa said there were some priorities that took less time yet were able to advance objectives. Ms. Gust-Jenson clarified there was not a priority that did not take resources, but the major focus took place on air quality and urban trails.
Ms. Weaver said 2015 priorities might include additional phases on previous priorities if desired. She said the process ideally allows where the bulk of resources could be focused and how Staff time can best be allocated. She said Staff was in charge of carrying these items and documentation forward. She said Staff provides quarterly and annual reports, and the priority list actually triggers discussion when the budget funding comes forward. Ms. Gust-Jenson said adding new priorities while continuing to track others from last year with the potential to expand was not realistic from a resource perspective. She inquired if campaign finance was desired to be a big project or just retained as a priority; she said Staff workload would require distinction and this priority was undone at this point. Mr. Murphy said the example of Air Quality could come up again at the end of the year, but there are also other elements that could continue to push forward on which Staff would need guidance.
The Council discussed the campaign finance priority, with the suggestion offered this could be addressed and determined in a short period of time without spending a huge amount of resources and time. Ms. Gust-Jenson suggested study to demonstrate that limits would be realistic. Councilmember Penfold suggested there were existing models that Staff could obtain to assist the Council to know what those limits were.
Councilmember Garrott said for the upcoming year, he would like the Council to entertain the concept of broad versus narrow. Discussion followed regarding the direction to consider a broader spectrum of issues to allow Staff flexibility, as well as utilizing prioritization as a tool to cause accomplishment. Further discussion followed relative to broad strokes working well with Administration to be able to accomplish as much as possible.
4. 1:43:14 PM Council Member Proposals for 2015 Projects.
The following priority projects were identified by individual Council Members.
Councilmember Adams:
•Homeless Day Shelter.
§ Ordinance that deals with panhandling in a constitutional manner.
§ Method to effectively deal with the drug problem throughout the City, and particularly in the downtown area.
Councilmember Penfold said the concept of a Homeless Day Shelter was specific and inquired if Councilmember Adams would consider homeless services as a broader umbrella. Councilmember Adams said she would add amenities to her list but would not want her priority to get overlooked and wants something to provide that specific type of service.
Councilmember Luke:
•Continued or enhanced facilitation of Economic Development business nodes.
•CIP/maintenance/municipal services/Council funding the CIP goal and the need to consider a broad distribution of funds not focusing on certain areas or needs.
Ms. Weaver added that in terms of increasing transparency for Engineering concepts, City Staff was working to improve mapping and data on projects. She said the open data portal had that skeleton of a program and an interactive mapping device was being looked at for future projects.
Councilmember Mendenhall:
•Broad/robust housing discussion.
•Expand the Economic Development Small Business Loan Fund to offer a more involved approach, and to include an education component.
•Trees (big trees, more money, more trees, service, maintenance, large canopy trees on streets, and ongoing funding commitments).
Councilmember Penfold said he would support local businesses impacted by a major project through a loan fund or specific project. He inquired whether there were other ways to consider costs specific to a project that were related to impact mitigation and to ensure that component was addressed in the project funding. Councilmember Mendenhall said she felt the Economic Development Loan Fund was underutilized and the existing loan fund might require tweaking in terms of defining target zones allowed to access the funding. She said an interfacing component could be added or built into the costs.
Councilmember Penfold said he liked the idea of using people in the system that were versed in small business funding and include a project interface funding line item as a cost component. Ms. Bruno added the challenge would be depending on the source and it would have to be something the City owned that was amortizable but could be recognized in the project budget. The Council discussed the desire for City projects not to be feared, but for the public and business to know the City would help them survive and would use marketing tools to help communicate with their customers. The suggestion was offered for an entire program with multiple resources to develop and coordinate but entail focus and funding. Discussion followed regarding a philosophical change including business relations at the front end of the project to level that resource before the project even began.
The Council took at break at 2:25 p.m. A formal meeting was conducted at 2:40 p.m. and the Planning Workshop meeting reconvened at 2:42 p.m. (see file M 15-3)
Councilmember Penfold:
•Trees in the context of neighborhood quality and sustainability of the City.
•Open space and identifying Open Space zones.
•Trails
Councilmember LaMalfa:
•General Obligation Bond for recreation infrastructure.
•West Salt Lake Master Plan implementation.
•Trees
Councilmember Rogers:
•Overall theme - “Step Off District 1”.
•Economic Development (pursuit of every possible avenue towards large scale, career creator; medium scale, district stabilizer; and small scale, neighborhood nodes, restaurants, and small businesses that build the neighborhood.
•Define how impact fee schedules are set.
•Identify City Infrastructure needs.
Further discussion followed regarding impact fees, square footage instead of doors, what to do with industrial areas that were being charged and not spending, items that were done or were not being done, and possibly a zoning ordinance to distinguish impact fees and actual costs per zone. Councilmember Garrott discussed some type of distribution policy, issues with transparency and planning, and potential for an impact fee consultant. He said a good process was needed for implementing or distributing and no connection existed between what customers were paying and what was being given back.
Councilmember Penfold said he felt something was lacking between impact fees and match requirements and suggested exploring a better plan or mapping process. Councilmember Rodgers said Utah was growing at 5% and Salt Lake City at 2.5%; he said the capital City should be above the state average and might have to increase the ability to offer and focus on every single business coming to the City. Ms. Gust-Jenson said there was a need to obtain more information relative to impact fees, spending, rates, locations, and improved communication.
Councilmember Garrott:
•CIP strategic planning
•Affordable housing
•Open space and urban trails
Ms. Weaver said Staff was able to consolidate most of the 21 topics down to 12. She provided example of the CIP process, including broad Council support as well as differing approaches or philosophies on how money was spent and raised, and including a work plan to return to Council with competing approaches and further policy discussion. She said there are now 12 projects up for voting and asked the Council to illustrate whether the consolidated area did not capture their proposal. She said should the Council feel their proposal should be self-standing, she would encourage them to think about not getting enough votes to make it over the threshold and whether consolidating would render that possible.
Councilmember LaMalfa said he does not see implementation of the West Salt Lake Plan becoming part of the CIP consolidated priority.
It was determined each Councilmember would have 7 votes; time was allowed for various votes. Surprise or new ideas consisted of full-time City Council; parking meter hours return back to 6:00 p.m.; and High School Fire Department female training day.
Priorities were outlines as follows:
1. CIP Process & Funding (consolidated item) – 8 votes.
2. West Salt Lake Master Plan Implementation and Recreation General Obligation Bond – tied with 7 votes each.
3. Trees/Urban forestry (consolidated priority) – 6 votes.
4. Impact fees and Economic Development – tied with 5 votes each.
Ms. Weaver said Staff would type up the consolidated priority listings and send them out to the Council. She said Staff could present work plans for chosen priorities at the March 17, 2015 work session. Councilmember Garrott said the Council would work on other items this year such as homeless, housing, etc. and Staff was committed to providing opportunities for other priority items. He said the Council could break the projects into more detailed work plans, questions, or response for direction, how to coordinate with Administration, etc. and said he would consider 1-2 hours necessary at that meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 4:10 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 Planning Workshop held February 17, 2014.
clm