The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, February 24, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street.
In Attendance: Council Members James Rogers, Luke Garrott, Erin Mendenhall, Lisa Adams, Charlie Luke, Kyle LaMalfa, and Stan Penfold.
Staff in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Jennifer Bruno, Executive Council Deputy Director; David Everitt, Mayor’s Chief of Staff; Margaret Plane, City Attorney; Lynn Pace, Mayor’s Senior Advisor; Russell Weeks, Council Senior Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Senior Council Policy Analyst; Allison Rowland, Council Policy Analyst; Robin Hutcheson, Transportation Director; Michael Akerlow, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Nole Walkingshaw, Institutional Engagement Manager; Ryan McFarland, Property Manager; Brian Roberts, Senior City Attorney; Nick Tarbet, Council Policy Analyst; Everett Joyce, Senior Planner; Michaela Oktay, Planning Manager; Benjamin Luedtke, Council Constituent Liaison/Policy Analyst; Paul Nielson, Appointed Senior City Attorney; Jeff Snelling, City Engineer; Cindi Mansell, City Recorder; and Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder.
Guests in Attendance: Pamela Silberman, Community Development/Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board Chair.
Councilmember Garrott presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 2:16 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. 2:16:44 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON THE HIVE PASS PROGRAM, WHICH WAS PART OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S FISCAL YEAR 2014-15 BUDGET. The Hive Pass Program is a continuation of a pilot program that provided City residents with affordable transit passes and ran from February to October 2014. Under the proposal, $323,059 from the General Fund would be used to continue the program. Monthly passes would be available for $41.88, with Utah Transit Authority (UTA) and the City sharing the remaining costs. (Item H1) View Attachments
Robin Hutcheson briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included transit deficiencies, inadequate service hours/frequency-availability, equity barriers, sustainable partnerships, monthly passes, costs shared with UTA/residents, no change to existing voucher program, air quality/other benefits, ongoing evaluation, explore funding mechanisms, expand program, Transit Master Plan process (TMP), timeline/impact of distance-based fares, marketing/community outreach priorities, software issues to create accounts/registration process, subsidy investment, circulator buses, success measurements, Front Runner HIVE option, and future City subsidies/investments.
Ms. Hutcheson said she would analyze how the $160,000 allocation was spent and prepare a report for future Council discussions.
Councilmember Garrott questioned whether the City would be better served by investing in transportation rather than subsidizing monthly pass holders. He said over the years that would be amount to millions of dollars which could have been spent investing in a public transportation system.
Councilmember Mendenhall said, as part of the current TMP process, she wanted ideas about how the City would get HIVE pass riders involved in the process. Councilmember Luke requested written quarterly updates. Councilmember LaMalfa requested additional marketing efforts/investment.
Councilmember Penfold requested the Administration evaluate the program and provide as much information as possible regarding benefit comparisons and extracting performance for public goals. Ms. Hutcheson said she would identify what the department had the ability to measure and attach them to the proposal.
Councilmember Garrott asked about a request the Council made four years ago to change City policy on public-way advertising to allow more bus stops. Ms. Hutcheson said she could not speak to that issue but said Transportation prepared a capital improvement proposal so UTA funds could be leveraged to construct better bus stops.
Councilmember Garrott said this would come to the Council in Budget Amendment No. 3.
#2. 3:10:07 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ABOUT A PROPOSED FRANCHISE AGREEMENT FOR GOOGLE FIBER UTAH, LLC, A TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY. The agreement would allow the company to place and maintain its facilities within the City rights-of-way. The company would be governed by certain conditions, would need to secure appropriate permits, and pay a franchise fee. In February 2014, Google Fiber announced Salt Lake City was among 34 cities exploring the possibility of bringing ultra high-speed broadband network to residents. This franchise agreement is a part of that exploratory process. View Attachments
Jennifer Bruno, Nole Walkingshaw, David Everitt, Paul Nielson, and Brian Roberts briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included expanded internet service, digital inclusion, no binding clause to ensure fast internet was available to every City resident, dissatisfaction with current internet speeds, inequity in providing digital services, level playing field for providers, obtain analysis on other companies, provide hook-up subsidies, education component needed, deregulation, commitment to expand service area, public goals/impact/return, understand different technologies/services, and exact performance for public goals.
Mr. Everitt said the City needed to discuss/develop a policy which could be applied equally to all providers, not just this proposal. He said the Council/Administration needed to work together to address policy issues i.e. equity, access/assuring connections, inclusion strategies, identify geographic/public locations, subsidies, incentives, and vendor obligations, etc. and requested the Council’s assistance/leadership.
Councilmember LaMalfa asked if the proposed agreement left the door open so once a policy was in place, Google along with other providers would be bound by digital inclusion. Mr. Roberts said there were Federal constraints on what could be imposed in franchises. Councilmember LaMalfa thought a placeholder could be included in the agreement and wanted to see advancement on that concept before being adopted by the Council.
Councilmember Rogers said the Mayor/Council received a letter from another provider and requested the letter be analyzed and information brought back so the Council could better understand differences between the two franchise companies.
Straw Poll: Support to move forward with large/high level policy follow-up (separate from this proposal) on what the City wanted vendors to provide, i.e. accessibility, inclusion, and quality service. All Council Members were in favor.
Councilmember LaMalfa said he wanted to include a provision in the agreement requiring Google to meet Citywide digital equity/inclusion standards. A Straw Poll was taken on whether to include that request in the agreement. Council Members Adams, Mendenhall, James, Penfold, and Luke were opposed. Council Members Garrott and LaMalfa were in favor.
Councilmember Garrott said formal action would be scheduled for March 3, 2015 and invited the public to provide feedback before that date.
#3. 3:51:41 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ABOUT PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR GROUND MOUNTED UTILITY BOXES PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. PLNPCM2014-00193. The new standards are designed to provide reliable utility services to the community while also ensuring that the aesthetic quality of the City is preserved. The proposal would streamline the approval process for boxes located on private property, in alleys and smaller boxes in park strips. Related provisions of Title 21A, Zoning, may also be amended as part of this petition. Petitioner- Mayor Ralph Becker. View Attachments
Nick Tarbet, Michaela Oktay, Jeff Snelling, Nole Walkingshaw, and Everitt Joyce briefed the Council with a PowerPoint Presentation and attachments. Comments included establish consistent/predictable review process, incentivize utility companies to place boxes on private property, tiered review process, annual fees, maintenance concerns, esthetics, special exceptions, mitigate negative impacts, complaint based enforcement, inventory boxes, box leveling requirements, beautification fee, require providers to inspect boxes on annual basis, fee for oversized boxes, require new boxes to be installed underground, quality construction, uniform standards/materials, wrap boxes with artistic look, boxes attract posters, graffiti, etc., switch from conditional use to special exception, legally vested uses, fiber/communication huts, homeowners not forced to allow boxes on private property, residential versus commercial standards/definitions, establish design standards for historical neighborhoods, provide alternatives to make boxes less impactful, providers should check own boxes, enforcement issues relating to existing/grandfathered boxes, require upgrades after certain age, maximum size for each type of box, cost recovery analysis, and define meaning of “block-face”.
Councilmember Penfold requested follow-up about costs and other issues involved in locating/identifying utility boxes throughout the City. Mr. Snelling said they were already in the process of locating all ground mounted utility boxes. He said it would take 2-3 years to complete and would provide the City with valuable information about location, ownership, box conditions, and other pertinent data.
Councilmember Rogers said separate requirements were needed for commercial/residential and standards needed to be developed for historic neighborhoods. Councilmember Garrott said he wanted the City to take a firmer stance and insist utility boxes are less impactful.
Councilmember LaMalfa requested a provision be added to the ordinance requiring providers to annually inspect their own utility boxes. Councilmember Penfold expressed concerned about how to capture/enforce existing utility boxes in this process since they went through a different permitting process.
Discussion was held on the best way to define/determine spacing requirements for utility boxes. Mr. Snelling said there was an industrial component that needed to be considered.
Straw Polls:
•Support that spacing requirements be a single standard (normal “Plat-of-Zion” 660’- block face). All Council Members were in support.
•Support to insert leveling requirements in appropriate places in the ordinance. All Council Members were in support.
•Support to impose a beautification fee on each box. Council Members Penfold, Adams, Rogers, and Luke were opposed. Council Members Garrott, LaMalfa, and Mendenhall were in support.
•Support to include incentives for providers to construct smaller boxes. All Council Members were in support. Mr. Everitt requested clarification. Councilmember Garrott said the Council wanted to provide additional incentives to reduce above ground impacts of all utility boxes (over-the-counter and special exceptions).
•Support to impose a self inspection requirement where owners inspect boxes based on quality standards identified in the ordinance at least annually or more frequent. All Council Members were in support.
#4. 5:12:45 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON A PROPOSED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE ELECTION SERVICES FOR THE 2015 MUNICIPAL ELECTION. The elections will include a combination of poll locations and vote-by-mail ballots. View Attachments
Cindi Mansell and Ben Luedtke briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included resolution supporting vote-by-mail election process, deteriorating voting machines, 25% of residents already signed-up for permanent vote-by-mail, provisional voting allowed at any location, sending voter information cards, potential for voter confusion, ensure City only paid return postage for voted ballots, early voting issues, concerns about purged voters receiving a ballot, extended advertising for polling locations, and vote centers open to all voters.
Discussion was held on issues relating to the three voting methods identified in the attachments with the following Straw Polls being taken:
•Support to conduct a full traditional (in person) election. All Council Members were opposed, except Councilmember Rogers who was in support.
•Support to conduct a full vote-by-mail election. Council Members LaMalfa, Luke, and Adams were in support. Council Members Mendenhall, Rogers, and Garrott were opposed. Councilmember Penfold abstained.
•Support to conduct a hybrid election. All Council Members were in support.
Councilmember Garrott invited Council Members to make suggestions regarding polling locations.
#5. 5:12:01 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON THE HUD 5-YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN TITLED “NEIGHBORHOODS OF OPPORTUNITY,” WHICH WILL FOCUS ON EXPANDING ACCESS TO HOUSING, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TRANSPORTATION, EDUCATION AND HEALTH WITHIN SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHIC AREAS IN THE CITY. As federal funding for low and moderately low-income individuals and families has decreased, need has increased, requiring the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division to shift how funds are allocated to ensure they are used more strategically and geographically. View Attachments
Item pulled.
#6. 5:30:37 PM HOLD A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING TO DISCUSS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENSURING THE LONG-TERM VIABILITY OF THE CITY’S GOLF COURSES. The discussion may include reviewing a motion or resolution addressing the financial status of the Salt Lake City Golf Enterprise Fund, including ongoing golf course operations, capital needs, course locations and uses, management, and other related items. (Item D3) View Attachments
Jennifer Bruno and Allison Rowland briefed the Council with attachments. Discussion was held on how the Council wanted to deal with information obtained from a worksheet utilized at a previous meeting. A Straw Poll was taken for support to develop 2-3 proposals which could be recommended to the Administration. All Council Members were in support.
Councilmember Garrott gave Council Members an opportunity to make individual proposals which were then summarized in the following Straw Polls: View Attachments
•Support for Councilmember Adam’s proposal: broad scope GO Bond (scope to be determined), Request for Proposal (RFP) to manage entire remaining golf system, turn Wingpointe over to the Airport to manage immediately, close and repurpose only Glendale which would remain open during interim bond process, potentially include secondary water installation at golf courses as part of GO Bond, keep golf courses open until GO Bond and RFP processes were finalized, and General Fund subsidies acceptable for secondary water in addition to GO Bond. Council Members Penfold, Garrott, Luke, and LaMalfa were opposed. Council Members Rogers, Adams, and Mendenhall were in support.
•Support for Councilmember Roger’s proposal: pursue GO Bond as soon as possible independent of decisions on golf courses, pursue a very flexible RFP including potential privatization, golf courses to remain open during RFP process (including Wingpointe), General Fund subsidy (consider closing courses if subsidy was insufficient), decision to close courses would be made after RFP process was completed, and General Fund subsidy for secondary water, and support for regional park/trail system. Council Members Penfold, Garrott, Luke, Mendenhall, and LaMalfa were opposed. Council Members Rogers and Adams were in support.
•Support for Councilmember Penfold’s proposal: broad scope regional open space bond incorporating foothills and integrated trail systems to connect City parks including a robust public process to determine final uses prior to a GO Bond, RFP not essential part of proposal, keep courses operating as golf courses while GO Bond process was going on, okay with General Fund subsidy during that time, turn Wingpointe over to Airport to manage immediately, close Glendale and Nibley for alternative uses, GO Bond including secondary water and General Fund subsidy for golf operations while GO Bond was developed. Council Members Penfold, Garrott, Luke, Mendenhall, Rogers, and LaMalfa were in support. Councilmember Adams was opposed.
•Support for Councilmember Mendenhall’s proposal: GO Bond after an RFP process was completed even if that meant the GO Bond would not be formulated until next year, issue RFP process before decisions were made on course closures except for Wingpointe, potentially restrict RFP to address only the most challenged courses, opposed to closing any courses until RFP results were in, and General Fund subsidy for secondary water installation. Council Members Penfold, Garrott, Luke, Adams, Rogers, and LaMalfa were opposed. Councilmember Mendenhall was in support.
•Support for Councilmember LaMalfa’s proposal: Similar to Councilmember Penfold’s for broad regional open space amenities bond including foothills and trail systems, etc., include flexible RFP for remainder of system (include addressing capital improvements as a desired element), keep courses operating as golf courses while GO Bond process was ongoing, consider closing and repurposing Glendale and Nibley with GO Bond, turn Wingpointe over to the Airport to manage immediately, GO Bond could include installing secondary water at golf courses, and utilize General Fund subsidy to keep courses open while GO Bond was developed. Council Members Mendenhall, Penfold, Rogers, Garrott, and LaMalfa were in support. Council Members Luke and Adams were opposed.
•Support for Councilmember Luke’s proposal: GO Bond with desire the bond be specific even if that meant doing it next year, broad conceptual RFP for game changer idea(not necessarily privatization), capital deferred maintenance a requirement of RFP process, turn Wingpointe over to the Airport, close Glendale after bond was placed before voters and project was ready (assuming bond passage), shift youth golf programs to Rose Park, repurpose Nibley (based upon legal challenges), General Fund subsidy to keep courses open while GO Bond and/or RFP process was in the works, and look at secondary water for GO Bond or General Fund subsidy. Council Members Mendenhall, Rogers, Garrott, and Luke were in support. Council Members Penfold, LaMalfa, and Adams were opposed.
Councilmember Garrott asked if the Council wanted to consider action during the formal meeting or wait until the following week. A majority of the Council was in favor of addressing the issue during the formal meeting. Ms. Bruno said staff would prepare motion language based on the top three proposals (Council Members Penfold, LaMalfa, and Luke)
#7. (TENTATIVE) HOLD A DISCUSSION AND RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING MATTERS OF INTEREST TO THE CITY THAT ARISE DURING THE 2015 STATE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
Item not held.
#8. 6:38:43 PM INTERVIEW JEFF DIXON PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD. (ITEM H2)
Councilmember Garrott said Mr. Dixon’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration.
#9. 6:41:26 PM INTERVIEW DEE BREWER PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE CULTURE CORE BUDGET COMMITTEE. (ITEM H3)
Councilmember Garrott said Ms. Brewer’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration.
#10. 6:43:42 PM INTERVIEW JILL MILLER PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE UTAH PERFORMING ARTS CENTER AGENCY BOARD. (ITEM H4)
Councilmember Garrott said Ms. Miller’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration.
#11. 6:46:09 PM 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. View Attachments
See file M 15-5 for announcements.
#12. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
No discussion was held.
#13. 6:48:44 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. (CLOSED SESSION HELD IN ROOM 326)
Councilmember LaMalfa moved and Councilmember Penfold seconded to enter into Closed Session to discuss Attorney-Client matters that are privileged, Utah Code §78B-1-137, Utah Open and Public Meetings Law. A roll call vote was taken. Council Members Mendenhall, Penfold, LaMalfa, Rogers, Adams, and Garrott voted aye. Councilmember Luke was absent for the vote. 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, Jennifer Bruno, David Everitt, Rick Graham, Brian Roberts, Allison Rowland, Rusty Vetter, Nole Walkingshaw, Gina Chamness, John Vuyk, Jill Love, Russell Weeks, Lehua Weaver, Lynn Pace, and Scott Crandall.
The Closed Session adjourned at 7:32 p.m.
The meeting adjourned at 7:32 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 February 24, 2015.
sc