The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, July 21, 2015, at 2:14 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: Ralph Becker, Mayor; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Jennifer Bruno, Executive Council Deputy Director; David Everitt, Mayor’s Chief of Staff; Nichol Bourdeaux, Mayor’s Deputy Chief of Staff; Margaret Plane, City Attorney; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Sean Murphy, Council Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Senior Council Policy Analyst; Libby Stockstill, Council Liaison; Mike Akerlow, Housing & Neighborhood Development Director; Lynn Pace, Mayor’s Legal Advisor; Laura Briefer, Public Utilities Deputy Director; Nick Norris, Planning Manager; Nora Shepard, Planning Director; Jill Love, Community and Economic Development Director; and Cindi Mansell, City Recorder.
Guests in Attendance: Dr. Sammie Dixon, Salt Lake City (SLC) Mosquito Abatement District
Councilmember Garrott presided at and conducted the meeting.
2:14:34 PM The meeting was called to order at 2:14 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. 2:15:16 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON A PROPOSED INTERLOCAL PROGRAM AND FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR MOUNTAIN ACCORD. An initiative that seeks to plan the future of the central Wasatch Mountains in relation to the environment, recreation, transportation and the economy. Under the proposal, the City would contribute $600,000 over three years to the planning effort. The funding would be used to finalize a blueprint, or plan, for the group’s vision for the Central Wasatch Mountains and implement components of the blueprint.
Mayor Becker, Russell Weeks, and Laura Briefer briefed the Council with attachments. Mr. Weeks said the purpose this evening was to determine whether or not to formalize an official resolution authorizing the Interlocal agreement and funding. Mayor Becker updated the Council on the agreement and happenings since the May 2015 transmittal. Discussion followed regarding funding contributors, sequence of spending (i.e. state money first and then local funds), and whether other jurisdictions had adopted a resolution or were committed to funding. Mayor Becker said the agreement to move forward was signed by every member of the Executive Committee (including representatives of all entities as well as private sectors). He said land transfers included private to public ownership, along with creation of a formal designation with specific protections prohibiting future development, and protection for water and natural resources. Inquiry was raised relative to transportation affects, with Mayor Becker stating it would involve only transit alternatives such as buses or trains and connections between Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons.
#2. 2:42:14 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION ABOUT PROGRESS ON A NEW MASTER PLAN FOR THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT. The plan will guide new development, land use activities and zoning decisions in the area.
Nora Shepard, Nick Norris, and Jill Love briefed the Council with attachments. Mr. Norris said this plan involved a tight time frame and Staff was working to expedite the process. He discussed the desire to preserve grazing rights, landfill north of Interstate-80 issues, planning process remediation, desire not to rezone the entire area all at once, pros/cons with residential development or land uses, infrastructure, and wildlife habitat and sensitive lands proximity. He said staff wanted to have a draft available by August for public input.
Discussion followed regarding timing, with Council Members LaMalfa and Mendenhall stating they preferred to wait until the proposed prison relocation site had been officially determined. Councilmember Rogers said he wanted to be prepared for any scenario and encouraged acting now. Councilmember Mendenhall said zoning would not influence nor deter the prison relocation in any way. The Council debated previous consideration of the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan, prison relocation timing issues, and having substantial justification to move forward. Councilmember LaMalfa said development would not happen without installation of major infrastructure development and utility costs. Ms. Love said Staff was responding to the Council’s resolution/direction and felt area residents would appreciate master plan guidance for future development. Councilmember Rogers said had the original master plan been approved, the prison would not even be a discussion at this time.
A 4-2 Straw Poll was taken in favor of the Administration timeline and project outline proposal, with Council Members Adams, Rogers, Garrott, and Luke voting in favor; Council Members LaMalfa and Mendenhall were opposed. Councilmember Penfold was absent for the vote.
#3. SITE CHALLENGES FOR PROPOSED PRISON RELOCATION – SALT LAKE CITY SITE.
a. 3:10:12 PM Water & Sewer Utility Issues - The Council will be briefed about and discuss water and sewer treatment challenges at the proposed prison relocation site.
Lynn Pace and Laura Briefer briefed the Council with attachments. Ms. Briefer discussed upgrades that would be necessary in order to support the proposed prison relocation. She said preliminary calculations were $46 million including water; however, additional details were needed to verify cost estimates. Mr. Pace said the Prison Relocation Commission (PRC) was informed by the consultant that the Salt Lake City site utility infrastructure estimate was between $31 and $64 million. He said Staff estimates include onsite/offsite improvements; offsite alone would be $46 million so it was felt those numbers were low. Inquiry was raised relative to liability to SLC taxpayers. Mr. Pace said costs would be determined by actual site location and function. He said SLC made it clear that all costs would be required to be paid and it had been discussed many times that SLC would not pay those costs.
Discussion followed regarding potential to accommodate a new sewer treatment facility at the cost of $300 million to allow for growth. Mr. Pace said the prison project would not drive that need. He clarified any new development needed to pay all direct costs related to their project and capacity issues would be addressed with impact fees to cover costs. Ms. Gust-Jenson offered clarification that incremental development or other impact fees from the prison would not provide adequate funding for a new sewer treatment facility and would still require a huge investment from City taxpayers.
Mr. Pace said although everyone from SLC was opposed to the prison relocation in Salt Lake, they recognized the State had the authority to do what they thought was best. He said due to that, discussions were taking place regarding issues dealing with what might happen and not withstanding SLC opposition. He said based on the anticipated volume the prison would need relative to water and sewer, that project would require installation of all infrastructure in the Northwest Quadrant. He said there were already two areas existing at capacity which would have to be paid to upgrade; he clarified that same argument did not apply to the sewage treatment plant and overall capacity would be addressed by all future users in the Northwest Quadrant. Ms. Briefer said the increased capacity of the lines themselves would be included as part of the $46 million.
Discussion followed regarding the need to develop greatly accelerated capacity to support the prison and other development. Mr. Pace said extending water was based on property taxes and the State would not share in those costs. Discussion followed regarding potential costs to SLC taxpayers. Ms. Briefer said she had only calculated infrastructure; future rates/costs would most likely be higher. Mr. Pace said there were a lot of tax-exempt water users in SLC, and there would be broad based ramifications and decisions of much greater impact than just the prison. Councilmember Garrott addressed new sources of water due to new patterns of growth, and said such were committed to within the 5-year plan. Concern was expressed regarding new growth, capacity, and taxpayer costs to due to impacts associated with such a large new user.
b. 3:27:50 PM Report from Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District (SLCMAD)- The Council will be briefed about and discuss mosquito conditions at the proposed prison relocation site.
Dr. Sammie Dixon briefed the Council with attachments. Dr. Dixon discussed the mosquito burden associated with the proposed SLC site, historical comparisons of area traps to those in proximity, and potential issues with quality of life. He estimated the need to treat the proposed site area approximately three times weekly, at the ongoing cost of $160,000 annually. He said although that was a small amount when considering other issues, it was 8% of the District’s budget. He said there were concerns as to payment of those increased costs and whether those would be paid by State or City taxpayers. Further discussion followed regarding methods and procedures to treat mosquitoes. Councilmember Garrott said the SLCMAD would be requesting a tax increase this year and the Council would address that on a future agenda.
c. 3:36:20 PM Landfill Issues - The Council will be briefed about potential environmental challenges posed by the City’s old landfill, which is near the proposed relocation site.
Lynn Pace discussed timing of the PRC (comprised of seven Legislators and staff) and their task to take four sites and narrow that to one to be forwarded to the Governor and entire State Legislature. He said the Commission anticipated making that decision by August 1, 2015 but had since extended that for up to two 30-day periods (or until October 1) if necessary. He said he was not sure how much development could be done in the Northwest Quadrant without addressing at least some portion of the 7200 West Landfill. Discussion followed regarding environmental regulations and potential costs.
#4. 3:43:48 PM HOLD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CITY'S CURRENT HOUSING POLICY AND CONSIDER WHETHER THE POLICY ADEQUATELY REFLECTS ALL OF THE CITY'S HOUSING GOALS. This will likely be the first in a series of housing policy discussions to continue through the summer and fall.
Sean Murphy and Mike Akerlow briefed the Council with attachments. Mr. Murphy said Council Staff hoped to clarify the full list of Council Member concerns about housing in the City; and determine whether the City’s current Housing Policy reflected/encompassed those concerns. Discussion included potential fact finding, identifying and defining what was market (reasonable or affordable to SLC), what were the gaps/needs, who did not have access to housing, if residents could not locate housing and were leaving the City, trends or demographics shifts that would concern the City, whether there was a recent housing assessment needs report, and if there was need to hire a demographic consultant. Mr. Akerlow said there was a housing assessment needs study conducted in 2013 that was currently being updated with new Housing and Urban Development (HUD) census data. The Council felt it was critical to have the most current information in order to consider policy directions. Mr. Murphy suggested defining what the Council believed different terms meant and how those should be applied.
Councilmember Mendenhall discussed the demolition ordinance relative to protection of existing affordable housing and mitigation/affordability not being addressed in a site-specific way. Councilmember LaMalfa suggested bringing in experts to present data relative to housing and economics. He said he felt conclusion was needed about housing income mix to avoid preventing retail economic development from advancing as part of the housing policy. Further discussion followed regarding the addition of low-income, affordable, and market rate housing in a couple of sections throughout Chapter 18.64.050 within residential demolition provisions, the definition of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and what that included, considering defining characteristics or what TOD was with or without various transportation modes, and how to open funding opportunities for affordable development.
Inquiry was raised as to whether there was desire to include guidance relative to homelessness and relocating homeless services, emergency transitional and supportive housing, and further defining what those meant to SLC. It was felt transportation service would be critical with respect to any decision relative to housing density, establishing targets to grow affordable housing in areas people wanted to live in, low zoning requirements for parking, impacts of reduced parking on existing neighborhoods/developments, definition of neighborhood node, transit and regular vehicle parking, empowering/incentivizing policy statements (rather than “encourage”) to meet goals, multi-generational affordable housing in all neighborhoods, and other defining characteristics.
Councilmember Penfold said a better job was needed to figure out incentive-based (unique and specific) zoning especially in market developments and suggested gathering more information as to what that looked like or ideas to incorporate into the plan. Further discussion followed regarding geographical site replacement, including real estate parking needs and business nodes with considerations for transportation, and mixed-income development. Councilmember Mendenhall said she wanted to see the Transit Master Plan before holding the transit-oriented development discussion.
Mr. Murphy said the conversation about neighborhoods, density, and how to measure those was unfolding and would take a good amount of effort. Councilmember Penfold suggested a study of existing conditions, updated needs assessment, understanding gaps, and identifying tools/information to help guide policy discussions. Mr. Murphy said Staff could outline a revised policy based on comments, work with Administration to include a zoning analysis or additional information, and possibly involve experts in the process. Councilmember Garrott said Staff indicated they had sufficient direction as to policy adjustments for further discussion. Mr. Murphy requested communication if there were concerns about inaccuracies or controversial statements made within the Staff memo. He said he would track changes and move forward in this regard.
Ms. Gust-Jenson said $30,000 was available in this year’s budget for demographic work through the University.
Further discussion followed regarding how low-income housing was financed, longer-term affordability, whether to continue to tie affordability to existing financing structures, whether to deal with long-term or short-term fixes, and value in diversified demographics. Mr. Akerlow said Staff would have improved demographic information this fall if Council Staff could wait. Further discussion followed regarding moving forward now with the expectation that when Council returned for policy discussion they could determine what percentage of funding should go to what level of affordability, as well as define the kind the City desired.
#5. 5:02:16 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION ABOUT TWO OPTIONS FOR A PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE BOND PROPOSAL - A $150 MILLION BOND OPTION, OR A $125 MILLION BOND. If approved by voters, the potential bond would result in a property tax increase for residents and property owners and would be used to pay for more outdoor recreational opportunities in the City – including converting some current open spaces into new uses, adding trail improvements and connections, and other opportunities. The Administration will present details of its two proposals, respond to questions from the Council, and receive Council requests for alternative project information that could potentially be included in the bond. The Council will vote on August 18 to determine if the bond will be placed on the November ballot. (Item H7)
David Everitt, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Lehua Weaver, and Libby Stockstill briefed the Council with attachments and a Power Point presentation. Mr. Everitt said this process had been very comprehensive and collaborative and included a great deal of public engagement. He said the proposal and recommendation was based on what SLC residents said they wanted. He reviewed the need, process, vision, concepts, projects, benefits, and key takeaways from the public engagement. He said key takeaways included strong support for parks, trails, and open space, public understanding of value, encouraging City investment, and residents willingness to pay for enhancements. He said bonding was not the only answer for the Golf Fund but included money for secondary water installation, operational costs, and addressing challenges.
Inquiry was raised as to capital needs the Golf Fund had no way of meeting, how much the sale of Glendale Golf Course would help, and were there elements of the General Obligation Bond to address those questions. Mr. Everitt explained the sale of Glendale would not come out of bond proceeds and would be a one-time $2 million infusion into the Golf Fund. He said the intent was for the backlog of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) needs to be reduced due to removing courses and needs, as well as realizing water savings. Discussion followed regarding specific project proposals, prospect for other funding sources, impact fees, and where those would be applicable or possibly leveraged. Mr. Everitt said there were opportunities for applying park impacts fees to Glendale and perhaps other locations, but there was specific criteria surrounding growth and meeting demand. He added a future concession element might be forthcoming.
Councilmember Penfold said network and connectivity appeared key; he inquired how to assess components of the system and get around. Mr. Everitt said that was a critical component (referenced to in different pieces) that included way-finding in a way that branded the paved/unpaved system. He said identity of the holistic experience was critical. Suggestions were offered relative to acreage specifics, community fishing ponds, degree of community outreach, Council preference of projects/elements they add or remove, and tailoring the bond amount to a value citizens would accept. Concern was expressed regarding making this large of a financial decision based on less than 1% of what the citizenry wanted.
Councilmember Garrott said the focus this evening was on goals and broad view as to what the Council wanted to see in the proposal (whether that be trails, new recreation, restoration of nature, etc.). He inquired whether the Council wanted to move forward with the proposal at all or wanted to consider shaping some sort of bond proposal to put on the ballot. Concern was expressed regarding the hard work that had gone into the project, outreach efforts, concern with the given timeframe, sense of being rushed, and competing ballot measures such as the Transportation Tax and the 2016 Zoo, Arts, and Parks (ZAP).
Councilmember Luke inquired if consideration was given for not only operations/maintenance but for necessary improvements, modifications, or fixes when building something new. Mr. Everitt said there would be projected budget contingencies set aside for unknown costs. Councilmember Luke said previous lean budget years required slashing parks budgets that were never restored. He said his biggest concern in moving forward was adding $150 million in new projects that would cost $3.3 million for ongoing maintenance on top of previous cuts. He said there would be benefits to the entire City, but wondered about senior citizens or people on a fixed income. He said he wanted to support the bond, but timing and the current proposal made him less optimistic.
Councilmember Penfold said Parks had been underfunded after taking a big hit during the recession and their budget was never restored. He said the nature of the connecting network was exciting and he fully supported moving forward to craft a proposal for the November ballot.
Councilmember Mendenhall said SLC voters were very informed and the City needed to create a good proposal. She said proposals included a majority of Council priorities from current and past years for network assets that had been missing. She said the potential for economic development between the nodes was crucial.
Councilmember LaMalfa said he believed the Administration gave their best effort given the Council’s direction and guidance and the result was the people’s proposal. He said 23 master plans were also reviewed and incorporated in the proposal. He said each of those master plans also included their own public engagement process. He said he looked forward to having a new form of recreation in SLC, network connectivity allowing participation in new areas, and placing the proposal on the ballot.
Councilmember Rogers said it was difficult to consider funding new projects and not fund current projects. He expressed concern about the lack of resources to maintain/operate existing facilities and the potential result of having to raise property taxes again.
Councilmember Garrott said he would vote not to continue the process. He said the Council was supportive of the concept to advance major policy initiatives/priorities and they were interested in trail creation/connectivity of this bond (including restoration of the Jordan River corridor). He said he was concerned about $66 million going into Glendale and potential to create future liability for taxpayers. He said he thought the Council should focus on the smallest actual amount and what proposals were meant to accomplish. He said he felt the proposal in its current state would fail if put before voters and suggested a straw poll to determine whether to move forward.
Ms. Weaver said it would be helpful to know which projects Council Members had interest in because said it would take time to determine associated costs. Concern was expressed that missing information relative to impact fees and other funding streams might help determine what portion to move forward and bond for. Councilmember Garrott said a larger context would be to consider the County ZAP tax or other projects involved. He said there were definitely other funding partners for specific projects and inquired if the Council wanted County representatives to be present at a future discussion to possibly assist in prioritization or sanctioning of the bond amount. Discussion followed regarding which funding partners, with Ms. Weaver stating projects like the Pratt Trail not having funding, the Jordan River Commission would be similar with a lack of funding sources, and the County (albeit a partner) would be involved with the ZAP process where funding was up in the air and they might not be in position to commit to the City in terms of participation. She said Staff considered having Salt Lake County attend to discuss projects in their master plan process, and potential to team up with their funding cycle and matching up with those projects/partners. Councilmember Luke said he felt that should not be part of this particular process.
Ms. Gust-Jenson said there had already been huge amounts of public input on a multitude of projects, and suggested connecting with the usual partners who could help with getting the word out about the Council discussion. She said until more was known about the projects in which the Council was most interested, it would be difficult to determine whom to inform or involve. She added Staff had been working with Administration and Bond Counsel relative to potential for inclusion of deferred maintenance items.
Discussion followed on the impact fee balance, with Ms. Bruno stating there was approximately $2 million. She said those funds had to be spent on projects that were in the plan when funds were collected (projects on the current CIP tenure plan). She said perhaps additional projects could be added that would be growth eligible during the next round of 10-year CIP. She said she needed to obtain clarification on the law.
Councilmember Luke said the Council would not just be identifying projects but looking at the 10-year CIP plan and identifying those which legally qualified for use of impact fees and which of those would qualify for the bond. He suggested Staff verify the Golf Enterprise Fund and roughly $27 million in deferred maintenance and consider which of those projects would qualify for impact fees and which would qualify for bonds. He said that information would be helpful for the Council to have
A 6-1 Straw Poll was taken in favor of moving forward with the discussion and effort to put something on the bond, with Council Members Adams, Mendenhall, Rogers, Penfold, LaMalfa, and Luke voting in favor; Councilmember Garrott was opposed.
A 3-4 Straw Poll was taken and failed to move forward with the complete list of projects and bond request for $150 million, with Council Members Mendenhall, Penfold and LaMalfa voting in favor; Council Members Garrott, Adams, Rogers and Luke were opposed.
A 2-5 Straw Poll was taken and failed to move forward with a reduced project list and bond request for $125 million, with Council Members Mendenhall and Penfold voting in favor; Council Members Adams, Rogers, Luke, LaMalfa, and Garrott were opposed.
#6. RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON A PROPOSAL THAT WOULD AMEND REGULATIONS FOR TWO RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. PLNPCM2014-000127. The proposed changes would remove qualifying provisions for residential density, adjust required setbacks and lot standards, add design requirements and allow projecting signs in the R-MU-35 and R-MU-45 districts. Related provisions of Title 21A, Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition (Petitioner – Mayor Ralph Becker)(Item H2)
Item postponed
#7. RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON A NUMBER OF ZONING AMENDMENTS AS PART OF THE WESTSIDE MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS, A PRIORITY OF THE COUNCIL’S THIS YEAR. These amendments are designed to better foster neighborhood business zones on the west side, a need identified in the planning process.
a. Rezone – 700 South 900 West Neighborhood Node
Legislative Sponsor: Council Member Kyle LaMalfa
900 West 700 South – zoning map amendment for three properties at the Northwest corner to rezone them from RMF-35-Moderate Density Multi-family Residential to CN-Neighborhood Commercial. (Item H3) Petition No. PLNPCM2014-00374
b. Rezone – 400 South 900 West Community Node
Legislative Sponsor: Council Member Kyle LaMalfa
400 South 900 West – zoning map amendment for 24 properties on or near the intersection to rezone them from RMF-35-Moderate Density Multi-family Residential and CN-Neighborhood Commercial to R-MU-35-Residential/Mixed Use. (Item H4) Petition No. PLNPCM2014-00375
c. Rezone – 400 South Concord Street Neighborhood Node
Legislative Sponsor: Not Required – Petition from Mayor Becker
400 South Concord Street (1240 West) – zoning map amendment to rezone properties from R-1/5000-Single Family Residential to CN-Neighborhood Commercial and R-MU-35-Residential/Mixed Use. (Item H5) Petition No. PLNPCM2014-00380
d. Rezone – Indiana Avenue Neighborhood Node
Legislative Sponsor: Not Required – Petition from Mayor Becker
Indiana Avenue (850 South) between Navajo Street (1365 West) and Pueblo Street (1440 West) – zoning map amendment on the north side of Indiana Avenue to rezone the properties from CN-Neighborhood Commercial to R-MU-35-Residential/Mixed Use. (Item H6) Petition No. PLNPCM2014-00381
Items postponed
#8. 6:28:01 PM INTERVIEW SANDRA WALSH AND BRANDON MYERS PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF THEIR APPOINTMENTS TO THE POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD. (ITEM H10)
Councilmember Garrott said the applicants names were on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration.
#9. 6:33:21 PM INTERVIEW NICHOL BOURDEAUX PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE UTAH PERFORMING ARTS CENTER ADVISORY BOARD. (ITEM H11)
Councilmember Garrott said Ms. Bourdeaux’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration.
#10. 7:43:44 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, including but not limited to:
•Scheduling Items
•Funding for Parliament of the World Religions conference
•Small Neighborhood Business Text Amendment.
See File M 15-5 for Announcements.
#11. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
No discussion was held.
#12. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE FOR ANY ALLOWED PURPOSE.
Item was not held.
The meeting adjourned at 6:35 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 July 21, 2015.
clm