The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, June 2, 2015, at 1:16 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street.
In Attendance: Council Members James Rogers, Erin Mendenhall, Charlie Luke, Kyle LaMalfa, Luke Garrott, Lisa Adams, 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, Counsel to the Mayor; Jeff Niermeyer, Public Utilities Director; Debra Alexander, Human Resource Director; Robin Hutcheson, Transportation Director; Jill Love, Community & Economic Development Director; Mary DeLaMare-Schaeffer, Community & Economic Development Deputy Director; Gina Chamness, Finance Director; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; David Salazar, Human Resource Program Manager; Lehua Weaver, Council Policy Analyst; John Naser, City Engineer; Melissa Green, Human Resource Program Manager; Jodi Langford, Human Resource Program Manager; Greg Davis, Public Services Deputy Director; Vicki Bennett, Sustainability Environmental Director; Tamra Turpin, Risk Manager; Debbie Lyons, Sustainability Program Director; Scott Freitag, 911 Dispatch Director; John Baxter, Justice Court Judge; Curtis Preece, Justice Court Administrator; Valeta Bolton, Court Financial Analyst; and Cindi Mansell, City Recorder.
Guests in Attendance: Laura Levitt, American Preparatory Academy Director; Kindergarten Teachers and Classes; Hal Johnson, Utah Transit Authority
Councilmember Garrott presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 1:16 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS
1:16:06 PM Introduction of American Preparatory Academy.
Laura Levitt introduced herself as Director of the West Valley 1 Campus of the American Preparatory Academy. She explained this year (as part of the curriculum) the Kindergarten class had learned the entire Gettysburg Address. She said this was quite an accomplishment for any student let alone at Kindergarten age. She then introduced the Kindergarten teachers: Mrs. Nuttall; Mrs. Miller; Mrs. Peterson; and Mrs. Henderson.
The students then recited the entire Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln. Upon completion, the students received a standing ovation and thank you from the City Council and audience. Councilmember Rogers introduced his very own Kindergarten Student.
#1. 1:22:22 PM RECEIVE A WRITTEN BRIEFING ABOUT THE 2ND QUARTER HOUSING REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014-15, WHICH REFLECTS THE OUTCOMES OF THE CITY’S HOUSING EFFORTS IN RELATION TO CURRENT HOUSING MARKET CONDITIONS. Included in the report are targets for the 5000 DOORS housing initiative. View Attachments
Councilmember LaMalfa commented regarding citywide housing statistics and the sale of 40 homes last year (in zip code 84104). He said the Neighborhood Lift Program sold 24 units in March and 27 in April. He said this was a huge leap for housing sold in District 2 and notably housing that was capped at a certain income level. He referenced the report, and said District 2 received the majority of funds for housing preservation (51% of total housing funds). He expressed concern regarding the continuing concentration of poverty in the same area regardless of the adopted Housing Plan. He said the solution was a Council goal relative to increased economic development, reducing crime, increased education, and the continued focus in the same area. He said a way of stemming negative consequences was to invest in the West Side Master Plan. He said he hoped to include a revenue bond to assist with the positive growth of that community via implementation of that Plan and discussed potential funding sources for the future.
#2. 1:22:29 PM RECEIVE A WRITTEN BRIEFING ON UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN THE MAYOR’S RECOMMENDED BUDGET RELATING TO THE CITY’S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016. Capital improvements involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures. Generally, projects have a useful life of five or more years and cost $50,000 or more. View Attachments
Written Briefing Only.
#3. 1:26:20 PM RECEIVE A WRITTEN BRIEFING ON THE PERSONNEL AND PAYROLL COSTS THAT MAKE UP 66% OF THE CITY’S GENERAL FUND BUDGET. View Attachments
Written Briefing Only.
#4. 1:26:31 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ABOUT A RESOLUTION PREPARED BY THE UTAH LEAGUE OF CITIES AND TOWNS ENCOURAGING THE SALT LAKE COUNTY COUNCIL TO PLACE A .25 PERCENT LOCAL OPTION TRANSPORTATION TAX ON THE 2015 GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT. Placing it on the ballot would give residents county-wide the opportunity to determine whether the sales tax should be enacted. If passed, .10 percent of the sales tax would go to Salt Lake City to fund a variety of transportation projects; .05 percent would go to Salt Lake County for transportation projects; and .10 would go to the Utah Transit Authority for bus and rail transit. If passed, the .25 percent would bring sales tax rates in cities and unincorporated Salt Lake County to 7.1 percent. View Attachments
Lynn Pace and Russell Weeks briefed the Council from attachments. Discussion followed regarding the proposed resolution and increase on all items dedicated to transportation. Mr. Pace said the Legislative authorization was not specific as to when the issue would be placed before the voters; the issue was whether it would be in the fall of 2015 or wait until 2016. He said there appeared to be strong Administration/ surrounding community interest in moving forward sooner than later.
Discussion followed regarding timeline, public engagement or public entity participation, considering how funding would be used before being placed on the ballot, and whether or not Salt Lake City should be speaking to their residents relative to project specificity.
Council consensus was to approve a letter expressing City support for the funding increase and consider a resolution at the June 16, 2015 meeting.
#5. 1:41:00 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION REGARDING AN UPCOMING APPLICATION THAT THE UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY (UTA) PLANS TO SUBMIT TO THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN THE LATEST ROUND OF TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT GENERATING ECONOMIC RECOVERY (TIGER) GRANT FUNDING. (ITEM F1) View Attachments
David Everitt, Robin Hutcheson, Russell Weeks, Jill Love, Mary DeLaMare-Schaeffer, Gina Chamness, John Naser, and Jeff Niermeyer briefed the Council from attachments. Mr. Weeks outlined the pros and cons of the TIGER Grant as well as current funding. Ms. Hutcheson discussed potential for the project along with improvements to 2100 South Highland Drive. Mr. Niermeyer reviewed infrastructure projects needed to be done in this same area (and in conjunction), including water line replacement, repairs, signals, roadway work, and smaller associated drainage projects. Discussion followed regarding transportation, parking, and absence of UTA participation. Ms. Hutcheson said all those involved with the project were looking at ways to reduce operating costs as much as possible. Councilmember Mendenhall requested frequent updates from Ms. Hutcheson as to UTA partnership efforts.
Ms. Hutcheson discussed the public engagement process with those affected and said staff would consider similar lessons involved with the North Temple process. Inquiry was raised if the grant funding was not received, would Staff move forward with replacement of the sewer and water line. Mr. Niermeyer said ideally, staff would continue condition assessment of those lines; however, some improvements were development-driven. Discussion followed regarding potential for a Special Improvement District, track ownership, and maintenance. Ms. Hutcheson said there was no agreement in place (only for existing tracks) and the concept of ownership/maintenance would return with a multitude of items during the agreement negotiations.
Councilmember Garrott expressed concern that UTA was the main grant applicant and there appeared to be consensus they would own the rails. Ms. Hutcheson explained that currently, the City did not have the capability to maintain the physical rails. Mr. Everitt affirmed this detail had not been agreed upon and agreements would be put into place once a funding source was clarified. He said he understood the Council wanted to maintain options and flexibility in going forward; he suggested discussion and negotiation during the gap between when grant awards were announced and disbursed.
Further discussion followed regarding ownership of the rails. Councilmember Mendenhall said that conversation was needed; however, the TIGER grant discussion was not the right time. Councilmember Garrott expressed concern with setting precedent going forward; the conversation was far more comprehensive as to whether the City wanted to get into the railway business. Councilmember LaMalfa said this was a large complicated project and engineer estimates were already not timely for master plan projects; he inquired how Engineering would be able to make choices regarding projects to prioritize as a result of dramatically increased workload or potential effects on Staff. Ms. DeLaMare-Schaeffer said that was not a fair comparison and management had the ability to manage and prioritize projects every day.
Ms. Love said Staff had consultant resources already being utilized for the Parks and Open Space bond on a number of projects and there was potential to extend services with these firms. She said the process and juggling priorities would continue to be reviewed administratively, and that prioritization was influenced by the Capital Improvement Process (CIP) process.
Mr. Naser discussed Engineering Staff and monthly coordination meetings with each Department and Division. He said that process entailed evaluating project needs, confirming maintenance, public expectation, and funding. He said it would help him to know which projects were lingering that was not in conceptual design or construction. Ms. Love said an internal review would be conducted to identify gaps; however, there were many divisions and agencies involved in a project throughout its life.
Inquiry was raised regarding the $2.5 million set aside and what happened if the project did not go forward. Ms. Hutcheson said it would be dedicated to specific CIP projects, but they were allowed to count as match because they touched the proposed TIGER area (McClelland Trail/other). Ms. Gust-Jenson said before a project was started or funds encumbered, the Council could always go in and reclaim remaining funds.
Councilmember LaMalfa said he was comfortable with the general direction to essentially support the grant application on the condition that no more General Fund money be used to make a match. Councilmember Garrott said giving away rail ownership and lack of UTA investment would be deal-breakers for him unless there was a contingency that should UTA become owners of the rails, there would be some other exchange of value. Ms. Hutcheson explained UTA would require permitting for the right-of-way and street access. Ms. Gust-Jenson said such could be accomplished via Interlocal agreement and if the City and UTA were not successful, the project could not move forward.
The Council considered alternative funding mechanisms and sources. Ms. Chamness said Staff was in the process of preparing the transmittal to authorize an interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County relative to $3.7 million funding details allocated for Class C roads, highway construction or reconstruction, or maintenance projects. She said wording could be included as to what the money would be used for, and could be included within the budget amendment process. Ms. Gust-Jenson said there was no contingent motion related to a Special Assessment Area (SAA) because the City would not have total control. She said there were two instances the City had unsuccessfully planned or relied upon. She said funding from the county would technically go into the General Fund, similar to gas tax funding or new revenue.
#6. RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON ITEMS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 ANNUAL BUDGET. The briefings include budget proposals for departments, separate funds, and other budget related items. Although the briefings will focus on the items listed below, any budget related matter may be discussed, including the budgets and ordinances associated with all enterprise funds and special funds subject to adoption by the Salt Lake City Council.
Council Staff Reports on Previously Presented City Department Budgets
a. 3:23:24 PM Human Resources Department View Attachments
The Department of Human Resources (HR) is funded by both the General Fund and Insurance and Risk Management Fund (which collects and distributes employee premiums and benefits).The Department provides numerous services for all City employees. HR Department programs include: Compensation and Employment Recruiting; Benefits and Wellness Management; Insurance and Risk Management; Training and Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Regulatory Compliance; Departmental Payroll and Administrators; Departmental Consultants and Administrative Support; Citizen Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) Administration and the Civilian Review Board Administration.
Debra Alexander, David Salazar, Melissa Green, Margaret Plane, and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council with attachments. Ms. Alexander said there were no changes to the budget. Discussion followed regarding reduction in consultant expenses realized by net reductions in pension costs and health insurance; infrequent support consulting for City agencies that do not fall under the City (Library); and base purpose statements included last year but not this year. Ms. Alexander discussed measurements, contributions, diversity in terms of representation, inclusiveness, welcoming process for new employees, increasing diverse representation at all levels of the organization, treatment, policies administered or enforced, employee morale to some extent (department function), termination or discipline responsibility, and CCAC recommendations relative to pay.
Inquiry was raised regarding potential pay disparity (between American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (ASCFME) police officers and the Police Union/Airport Police officers) including potential for disadvantage in quality staffing at the Airport. Mr. Salazar explained this issue was raised a couple of years ago and the feedback received was relative to meaningful differences in duties. He said it might be time for another review. Inquiry was raised as to whether it still made sense to have a separate Police Department at the Airport. Discussion followed regarding the Airport being an Enterprise Fund with the ability to contract for services.
Inquiry was raised as to Human Resource (HR) training topics, with Ms. Alexander stating departments could individually approach her group with specific topics. She said typically, trainings included organizational health and how to measure success, performance or effectiveness of training, tools of self-assessment and a trainee questionnaire regarding culture “fit”, important values such as gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation.
Melissa Green provided an overview of the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) investigation process. Ms. Alexander responded to Council questions regarding the sequence of events involving former SLCPD Officer Rick Findlay. She said allegations were sustained in the report. She said the response of appropriate action varied depending on conflicts, allegations, number of employees involved, etc. She said the Chief had the authority to administer discipline and was not in the HR realm. Concern was expressed as to existing policy that allowed such flexibility, at what point termination became appropriate, and how that policy was defined. Ms. Alexander said in this instance, the timeframe (although not defined in policy) was not customary. She further addressed various types of disciplinary action.
Ms. Plane said a Closed Session had been requested to answer questions relative to what was not in the public record, what would be made available, and to the extent of further questions. Councilmember Mendenhall suggested an appropriate timeframe for disciplinary response should be included within policy as a result to specific behaviors.
b. 4:18:03 PM Insurance and Risk Management View Attachments
The Insurance and Risk Management Fund accounts for costs associated with employee health insurance, dental insurance, disability insurance, life insurance, unemployment compensation, risk management insurance, and workers compensation.
Jodi Langford, Jennifer Bruno, Debra Alexander, and Tamra Turpin briefed the Council from attachments. Ms. Langford provided an overview of changes as recommended for implementation by the Benefits Committee, including increase of mental health coverage, discontinuance of the Summit Care Plan, and removal of retiree health care coverage. Ms. Turpin responded to insurance for special events in light of recent ordinance changes. She said recent changes were successful and acquiring insurance for events had not been an issue. She further referenced zoo (and other properties) coverage in the amount of the improvement bond, and $3.4 million of art coverage for replacement or reproduction. Discussion followed regarding Public Employees Health Plan (PEHP) as a partner in terms of estimating healthcare costs, child care update or project status, number of employees on the 501C9 program, and the employee health clinic.
c. 4:48:02 PM Refuse Fund View Attachments
The Refuse Fund includes the two enterprise fund budgets for the City’s collections services and the Office of Sustainability. The budget for collection services funds includes weekly curbside waste and recycling collections, glass recycling, and the neighborhood clean-up. The Office of Sustainability budget funds the City’s environmental and sustainability efforts, such as open space management, outreach, and development of sustainability projects relating to food policy and energy efficiency.
Greg Davis, Vicki Bennett, Debbie Lyons, and Lehua Weaver briefed the Council from attachments. Ms. Bennett said Sustainability had 10,000 followers on social media. Discussion followed on solar grant, tailpipe emissions plans, door-to-door outreach process, reduced recycling proceeds, no fee increases, and continued promotion of refuse container downsizing. Inquiry was asked about market and sale of yard waste products, with disappointment being expressed in not using this as a source of revenue. Ms. Lyons explained there was a significant amount that was sold; the landfill had a separate budget and these funds would not go back to Sustainability. She said there was a significant amount of work/capital overhead involved with yard waste, but Staff was considering opportunities to outsource the operation to a private company. Concern was expressed regarding paying a vendor to provide a valuable product they were not selling. Ms. Bennett said Staff worked closely and pushed to improve this process to result in a better product and increased financial outcome. Discussion followed regarding the addition of food waste and the multi-family recycling ordinance that would come forward after Council budget deliberations.
d. 5:11:03 PM Legislative Intents and Interim Study Items
The Council will receive a briefing from Mayor Becker’s Administration regarding the Council’s Legislative Intent Statements and Interim Study Items for Fiscal Year 2015-16. Legislative intents are formal requests the Council makes of the Administration. The briefing will go over the Administration’s responses to Council requests on a variety of topics contained in a semiannual report, including:
•management of community improvement grants;
•revenues from fines and forfeitures;
•City Cemetery study; and other topics.
Item not held.
e. 5:11:22 PM 911 Communications Bureau View Attachments
The 911 Communications Bureau was created as a part of the FY 2013 budget process, and consolidated Police and Fire Dispatch personnel into a single department.
Jennifer Bruno and Scott Freitag briefed the Council with attachments. Mr. Freitag provided an overview on 911 in the State of Utah, computer dispatch systems, effective collaboration, and how they were connected within regions throughout the state. He discussed the term length of dispatchers, and said only .03% make it to a 35-year retirement. He said the entry level salary might be adequate, but first year salary issues result in over 50% turnover. He said the CCAC Report looked at 2014 numbers, and he was working with HR for updated reviews. He further discussed the legislatively required technology initiative which was in the demonstration phase (4 vendors).
f. 5:28:28 PM Justice Courts View Attachments
The Justice Court handles misdemeanor criminal citations, small claims, traffic citations and traffic school for moving violations.
Honorable Judge John Baxter, Valeta Bolton, and Curtis Preece briefed the Council with attachments. Judge Baxter provided an overview of the Justice Court operating a much reduced paper environment, scanning with a high degree of success, and low error rate. He said although initially nervous about the notion of scanning and shredding, staff was comfortable with the electronic environment.
Inquiry was raised as to whether there was the need for additional funding for positions or tools. Judge Baxter referenced three positions funded in last year’s budget and said there was ability to limit funding for two of those. He said one Judicial Case Manager was hired to troubleshoot older court cases and this position had already made progress on formerly dead cases. Discussion followed regarding staffing with Mr. Preece offering explanation that it was determined accounts receivables were being sent to the Office of State Debt Collection and had been very successful. He said therefore, positions were not needed for that specific purpose. He said there was need for clerical function to escalate timely service, but not for collections with monetary penalties as was originally requested.
Discussion followed regarding numbers and statistics tracking the service of justice for victims of sexual assault and whether the City lagged behind other areas. Concern was expressed that no request was made for victim counselors. Judge Baxter said providing services for victims through the courts was difficult. He said there was obligation to find a safe place for the victim to come into court and receive protection. He said for the most part, victim resources came primarily through the Police Department, City Prosecutor’s Office, or agencies that had victim advocates.
Further discussion followed regarding jail, changes in procedure relative to inadequate jail use for small fines and community service above and beyond jail, etc.
#7. RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON ITEMS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 ANNUAL BUDGET. The briefings include budget proposals for departments, separate funds, and other budget related items. Although the briefings will focus on the items listed below, any budget related matter may be discussed, including the budgets and ordinances associated with all enterprise funds and special funds subject to adoption by the Salt Lake City Council.
a. 8:40:59 PM Attorney’s Office and Records Management
i. The Office of the Salt Lake City Attorney includes a section responsible for civil matters and administration, a section responsible for prosecution of criminal matters and the Office of the City Recorder. The City Attorney also administers the Risk Management and Governmental Immunity functions.
ii. This briefing may also include a discussion regarding citywide document and records management.
Items not held.
b. 8:41:24 PM Unresolved Issues
This includes all ideas Council Members have for altering the proposed budget. It could include restoring funding for a program that was proposed to be cut, or changing the number of employee positions a department is allotted. The Council reviews and discusses these kinds of potential changes during the "unresolved issue" portion of Council meetings in May and early June before taking action on the budget. View Attachments
Lehua Weaver and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council with attachments. Discussion followed regarding revenue items such as the property tax stabilization proposal. Ms. Bruno said the actual new growth numbers would be available on June 8, 2015. Councilmember Mendenhall referenced the increase of actual property tax collected from 2013 and 2014 budgets, and said the proposed increase was based on a two-year trend and could be considered or utilized for future predictions as well.
1. A 5-2 Straw Poll was conducted and failed to eliminate the property tax stabilization effort, with Council Members Adams, Penfold, Luke, Mendenhall, and LaMalfa voting “nay”; Council Members Garrott and Rogers voting “aye”.
2. Discussion followed regarding the current proposal to increase expired parking meter fines from $15 to $25. Councilmember Penfold said if reduced, this could potentially eliminate one tier of the late fine structure, which could have an increased impact on revenue. Suggestions were offered for a possible tier modification, increased time, or some other option/alternative to raise fines. A unanimous Straw Poll was conducted requesting additional information for reducing the increase for expired parking meters.
3. Discussion followed regarding other revenue ideas from the City Council. Councilmember LaMalfa said he suggested an additional golf tier as well as cart rental increase. He inquired as to rates at the new soccer complex, with Ms. Bruno stating she was unsure as to level of detail but knew that Administration was attempting to make the facility revenue-neutral. Ms. Gust-Jenson said there had been no public commitment to require revenue-neutral, and did not want to represent that impression.
4. Discussion followed regarding expense changes and taking one-time savings from positions by authorizing hiring extension to September 1. Councilmember Penfold requested additional information and suggested stretching or increasing the hiring process for one month (to October 1) to increase savings.
Councilmember LaMalfa referenced Item 4 on Legislative Intents which would capture savings that was budgeted for personnel but not spent on personnel back to the fund balance as a method of motivating hiring of the maximum staff level allocated. A 3-4 Straw Poll was conducted and failed with Council Members Garrott, LaMalfa, and Mendenhall voting “aye”; Council Members Adams, Penfold, Rogers, and Luke voting “nay”.
A unanimous Straw Poll was conducted to extend one-time savings from positions by authorizing hiring as of October 1 (an additional month).
5. Discussion followed regarding adding resources to Engineering to expedite availability of cost information to Council Members. Ms. Bruno said Administration provided clarification that the cost estimating part of the cycle was not necessarily the area where delays occur. She said there were two items – getting information up front and the life cycle of the CIP process. Ms. Gust-Jenson said if the Council wanted opportunity to obtain cost estimates up front before they were included in the CIP process, there was a mechanism to accomplish it. Councilmember LaMalfa discussed the focus on master plan implementation and the constraint of knowing how much items cost for CIP or funding processes. He said currently, availability of cost estimates, was subject to priorities of Engineering or Community & Economic Development teams.
The Council discussed wanting additional information. Councilmember Penfold suggested adding a legislative intent to request Administration evaluate the process from application through completion. Ms. Gust-Jenson said that process was underway and Council Staff were invited to participate. She clarified this item could be one-time with consulting or ongoing full-time employees. Councilmember LaMalfa said the projects had to be applied for and he suggested thinking broadly to seek cost estimates at the time of Master Plan adoption. Concern was expressed regarding over-estimating and potential timing of the study.
A 5-2 Straw Poll was conducted and failed regarding adding resources to Engineering to expedite availability of cost information, with Council Members Adams, Penfold, Rogers, Luke, and Garrott voting “nay”; Council Members LaMalfa and Mendenhall voting “aye”.
6. Discussion followed regarding consideration of asking for studies relative to the CIP process and building permit process. Ms. Gust-Jenson discussed process, timing, cost, and staffing considerations, ordinances, business/application process, etc. She said she believed these could be funded with already appropriated funds.
There was a unanimous Straw Poll in support of the studies as requested.
7. Consideration was given to funding the Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) Project Coordinator contingent on implementation of specific master plans. Councilmember LaMalfa suggested the item should read “Adopted Master Plans” only. Concern was expressed relative to preventing HAND from determining where the position function would be most beneficial. Ms. Bruno said there could be some plans not adopted by the Council that could be directed to the position such as 5,000 Doors; Westside Master Plan; and the Downtown Master Plan.
A 4-3 Straw Poll was conducted and failed for contingent appropriation funding only for Council Adopted Master Plans with Council Members Rogers, Luke, Adams, and Penfold voting “nay”; Council Members Mendenhall, LaMalfa, and Garrott voting “aye”. Clarification was offered that Council could still vote to fund or not fund that position.
8. Ms. Bruno referenced holding off on the Economic Development position, potentially until the Enterprise SLC report. She said Administration response included the goal of the proposed FTE to “shepherd” small business customers through the regulatory process across multiple City Divisions and Departments such that they could open their business quickly and seamlessly in SLC. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the position was an ombudsman versus regulator. The Council discussed this being a key component for business in SLC, requesting performance measures, including the Good Landlord Program, or need for more information.
A 6-1 Straw Poll was conducted in support of holding off on the Economic Development manager position until October 1, with Council Members Adams, LaMalfa, Mendenhall, Luke, Penfold, Rogers voting “aye”; Councilmember Garrott voting “nay”.
9. Ms. Bruno referenced cost justification study for building permit fees and said clarification was provided this could be achieved in the existing budget.
A unanimous Straw Poll was conducted in support of including this provision as a Legislative Intent.
10. A unanimous Straw Poll was conducted in support of enhancing internal Fraud/Waste/Abuse function by adding an outside hotline.
New Item between 42 & 43. Discussion followed regarding reconsideration of the scope of the Energy Saving Company (ESCO) that was approved in September 2014 to address concerns of residents and concerns for City trees. Councilmember Luke spoke in favor of consideration to expand the irrigated area at Bonneville by extending the life of the ESCO. He said this would still move towards the overall conservation issue.
Inquiry was raised as to urgency, with Councilmember Luke stating it would be best while the project was currently under construction. He suggested providing Administration direction to relay to Public Services. Councilmember LaMalfa said he was concerned because during golf course negotiations and closures the Council was instructed the ESCO contract was signed and closed and the Council based decisions on that information.
Councilmember Luke said he would not have voted for the ESCO had he known it would not extend to the edge of the course and trees. He said he was convinced not to allow the turf to die either. He said perhaps the Council could not undo the ESCO but they could at least add to the contract, and make this right. He said trees were a Council priority and the Council to relay how serious they were about their priorities.
It was stated the ESCO for Rose Park, Glendale, and Bonneville were a package deal. Councilmember Luke said neighbors around Bonneville were open to a SAA; he referenced a handout from his community entitled East Bench Residents Proposal for Bonneville Golf Course wherein it was recommended to provide for elements of maintenance for the 13-acre perimeter. He requested a Straw Poll to provide direction to Administration on renegotiating the ESCO to include this piece of looking at separate financing.
Councilmember Penfold said he would be in favor to leave the ESCO as is and requested a proposal for maintenance of the trees around the perimeter. He said consideration should be given above and beyond the cost estimate for tree maintenance and requested more information on the tree component. Discussion followed regarding financing options and alternatives such as a resident SAA.
A unanimous Straw Poll was taken to request additional information, including a variety of funding options for potential projects and maintenance levels which ranged from secondary extension on the irrigation system to hand watering.
Ms. Bruno said she had numbers for separate financing mechanisms to extend the irrigation system and watering; the question would be at what level and whether turf would be maintained as well as trees. Discussion followed regarding the intention to meet the neighborhood goal which was stated at the level of turf expectation, keep the turf root system alive, whether it would be rolled into the ESCO, and would that mean extension by a number of years to make the savings to help pay for that. Ms. Bruno said Administration did not have adequate information to make that determination but it would be forthcoming.
#8. 9:59:06 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.
See File M 15-5 for announcements.
#9. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
No discussion was held.
#10. 6:01:16 PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE §52-4-205(1)(a) DISCUSSION OF THE CHARACTER, PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE, OR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH OF AN INDIVIDUAL (ADVICE OF COUNSEL/LITIGATION); §52-4-205(1)(d) STRATEGY SESSIONS TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY, INCLUDING ANY FORM OF A WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES, IF PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD: (i) DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION; OR (ii) PREVENT THE PUBLIC BODY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS; AND §78B-1-137 FOR ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED. (CLOSED SESSION HELD IN ROOM 326)
Councilmember LaMalfa moved and Councilmember Luke seconded to enter into Closed Session to discuss the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual (Advice of Counsel/Litigation), Utah Code §52-4-205(1)(a), Utah Open and Public Meetings Law; §52-4-205(1)(d) strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property; and §78B-1-137 to discuss Attorney-Client matters that are privileged. A roll call vote was taken. Council Members Adams, Garrott, Mendenhall, Penfold, LaMalfa, Luke, and Rogers voted aye. See File M 15-2 for Sworn Statement.
In Attendance: Council Members Adams, Garrott, Rogers, LaMalfa, Mendenhall, Luke, and Penfold.
Others in Attendance: Margaret Plane, Cindy Gust-Jenson, David Everitt, Gina Chamness, John Vuyk, Mike Akerlow, Katherine Lewis, Jennifer Bruno, Lehua Weaver, Neil Lindberg, Mary DeLaMare-Schaeffer, Nick Tarbet, Deb Alexander, Jonathan Pappasideris, and Cindi Mansell.
The Closed Session adjourned at 7:13 p.m.
The Work Session meeting adjourned at 10:00 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 entire content.
This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held June 2, 2015.
clm