The City Council met with the Salt Lake County Mayor, Council, and Staff at a Dinner on Tuesday, June 23, 2015, at 6:08 p.m. at the Leonardo, 209 East 500 South, Salt Lake City.
In Attendance: Council Members Charlie Luke, Kyle LaMalfa, Luke Garrott, Erin Mendenhall.
Excused: Council Members James Rogers, Lisa Adams, and Stan Penfold.
Also In Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive Director; Russell Weeks, Council Senior Policy Analyst; Jan Aramaki, Council Community Facilitator; Dan Weist, Council Communication Director; Kira Luke, Council Staff; Libby Stockstill, Constituent Liaison; and Cindi Mansell, City Recorder.
Salt Lake County Representatives: Ben McAdams, Mayor; Jenny Wilson, County Council At-Large “A”; Sam Granato, County Council District 4; Arlyn Bradshaw, County Council District 1; Max Burdick, Council Council District 6/Vice Chair; and Weston Clark, Leslie Reberg, Adam Gardiner, and Isaac Higham, County Staff.
6:08:24 PM The meeting was called to order at 6:08 p.m. View Agenda
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION
Councilmember Garrott welcomed those present and thanked them for their time and service. He said the purpose was to discuss topics of mutual interest, such as Commercial Development Areas (CDAs); Transportation Tax; Recreation Bond Ballot Item; Zoo, Arts, & Parks (ZAP) update; future Dog off-leash partnership opportunities; and any other topics.
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS (CDAs)
Councilmember LaMalfa discussed the concept of CDA opportunities and inquired as to County participation to enhance, expand, and achieve economic development goals. Discussion followed regarding the differences between CDA and RDA (Redevelopment Agency) areas, with Councilmember LaMalfa offering explanation that RDAs took numerous years to pull together while CDAs could be created within months without regulatory burden or expense.
Arlyn Bradshaw said the Legislature gave local government this tool a number of years ago to provide an easier process than RDAs. He said at this point, the RDA process was rarely undertaken. He said the County was asked to participate in many of these, and without statutory benchmarks to meet, the County Council felt like the entire process had become a free-for-all. He said some areas they had not felt good about participating in, but felt it was owed to municipal partners to request expectations up front. Discussion followed regarding the Glendale area and whether this would be an appropriate use of the CDA mechanism. Mr. Bradshaw requested County Staff to provide the draft CDA policy language to the City Council; he said staff was in the process of adjusting final language. He clarified the reason the County was developing guidance was to illustrate if there was desire to request County tax increment the expectations should be defined.
Councilmember LaMalfa said a simple look at blighted areas would be beneficial in looking forward to scoping the types of activities and areas based on the CDA policy guidance. Councilmember Garrott added there could be future RDA potential and the City would appreciate having that conversation as well in the future. Mr. Bradshaw said the County could not continue to operate the County without new growth and the need existed to be more methodical with what was approved as well as expected outcomes.
AIR QUALITY
Councilmember Mendenhall said she was impressed with the County Health Department Air Quality Initiative. Discussion followed regarding the proposed wood-burning stove ban that failed. Mr. Bradshaw said there would not be any results until January 2016 at the earliest and the County wished they could have seen a similar process happen at the State level. Councilmember Mendenhall discussed the Council’s efforts and said she felt it would only be effective with a partnership on a higher level, and there was need to look towards the County/Health Department to be that mechanism for change.
TRAILS, RECREATION, RECREATION BOND, TRANSIT TAX View Attachments
Councilmember Mendenhall addressed Urban Trails and said the County was much further along than the City. She said if the Recreation Bond was placed on the ballot and passed, she wanted to see the City and County work together towards a corporate investment and wanted to have a cohesive conversation about this type of collaboration. She further referenced the Mountain View Corridor, 21st South interchange, bike trail designs, etc.
Jenny Wilson expressed concern regarding the proposed recreation bond and said she had concerns about voter support for three bonding items. Councilmember Garrott said a recent survey indicated that recreation uses that provided expansion opportunities for residents (trails expansion or open space) could be beneficial and positively received by residents. He outlined the need to reinvest the golf system and potentially transition one or more courses into parks or open space. He said that effort would require an infusion of cash which did not exist but could come from the General Obligation Bonding process. He said Salt Lake City (SLC) hired two consulting firms; one to facilitate public engagement and another to conduct a representative phone survey of residents. He said the Council had received a results presentation from Administration and were awaiting the recommendations report. The Council would then determine by August 18, 2015 whether or not to place the bond on the November ballot.
Ms. Wilson said the County Council had not committed to the Transportation Tax for 2015 or 2016. She said there was also the 2016 ZAP projects process; she expressed concern all of these items may create voter fatigue or intolerance to bond issues. Discussion followed regarding the best outcome for the County/City, as well as historical statistics for placement of multiple bond issues on ballots and subsequent success rate. Ms. Wilson said although the County was not yet in position to predict the ZAP process, clearly SLC would be in good position to receive funding for projects. Discussion followed regarding the potential for voters to chose either/or for recreation and ZAP and not both.
Councilmember Mendenhall said unfortunately, the City had no alternative solution to address the operational issues associated with its golf courses. She said SLC had yet to identify projects and hoped the survey would generate ideas. Councilmember Luke discussed funds necessary for maintenance within the Golf Enterprise Fund that had to be transferred immediately from the General Fund. He said the Council was not blind to the difficult timing issue, but their hands were tied as well as there being community interest in upgraded facilities. He said they were open to alternative solutions. It was suggested the Council provide necessary numbers to the County for consideration as a ZAP project.
Mayor McAdams said ZAP presumably delivered something to SLC that he and his family would use, and he wanted to see more trails. He said he saw the need for both, but wanted to see transportation focus in correlation. He discussed the transportation tax and said determination had yet to be made about whether it would go on the 2015 ballot. He discussed support for this year, and said the SLC Council resolution in support had been influential. He said voters wanted to see an ongoing revenue stream to support a project, and the City was not going to be able to tell voters how they would spend the recreation bond proceeds over 30 years. He said a mixture of more roads, road repairs, congestion solutions, active transportation, and different modes of transportation needed to be addressed and prioritized for the future.
Discussion followed regarding the transportation tax; with Russell Weeks stating more than four counties adopted resolutions in favor of putting it on the ballot this year. He said there was the sense that if Salt Lake, Weber, Davis, and Utah Counties put it on the ballot, the League of Cities & Towns Transportation Coalition would firmly back and actively promote the vote because that accounted for roughly 80% of the Utah population. Mayor McAdams said the approval would require six out of nine County Council votes (super majority) and the County would make a decision at its July 14, 2015 meeting. He said there was the need to recognize and educate exactly what the public was voting for.
DOGS OFF-LEASH
Mr. Bradshaw said the County Council requested the Parks Department look into potential parks/leash opportunities within Salt Lake County. He said the initial direction was to look at parks that would allow off-leash opportunities without a pen (designated area), or a broader concept and what that would look like. He said they explored options such as alternate days, off-leash hours, tag program, etc. He said the Parks Department presented six County parks that were geographically dispersed to run a pilot program over the next year.
Mr. Bradshaw said currently they were working on an implementation plan to bring before the County Council for direction. He asked about the City’s perspective and what SLC was considering, and whether it was wise to do something in tandem. He said there were two large areas such as Parley’s and Millcreek that allowed dogs off- leash on odd days and there was intense use in those two areas. He said the theory was the more locations, the more diversity and disbursement throughout. He said of the six parks recommended, one would be every-other day and five would be every day. He said if the City was considering something similar, implementation at the same time would be beneficial. Discussion followed regarding consistency of rules and sharing enforcement. Mr. Bradshaw said determination was made not to pursue the tag component as the cost could not be justified for the level of training and effectiveness to be realized. He said it could also give a false sense of security, so that option was not considered.
Councilmember Garrott said the Council considered options such as creating a new board or hiring a full-time employee, and did not approve either. Mr. Bradshaw said the City and County should have these conversations together to create consistency. Discussion followed regarding users not cleaning up after themselves, off-leash dog work group, dog park ranger, and community policing or community groups willing to provide education. Other suggestions were constable enforcement, training to fund quasi-law enforcement, empowering neighborhood watch groups, and being more directly involved with Animal Services. Councilmember Luke suggested working directly on enforcement through Animal Services Deputies to make it easier for City Administration. Mr. Bradshaw said he would move this discussion forward.
CULTURAL CORE
Ms. Wilson suggested the City and County work together on a process for Cultural Core Program annual funding. She said rather than coming up with individual projects to fund, there was the need to conduct a modified/updated visioning process. She said the County could direct and the City could participate; the last time something similar was done was in 2011. She said the Cultural Core revenue stream in 2011 was a community-based process, and a group of stakeholders was involved, but the City and County should be also. Councilmember Garrott said this would be a good opportunity, and he would have Council Staff add this item for discussion at the next Mayor/Chair/Vice Chair meeting.
HOMELESSNESS
Councilmember Luke addressed the homeless situation and said it was such a large issue that no one entity could fix it; he said he thought it would help to have the County and City engaged together. Discussion followed regarding the different facets and types of issues involved. Councilmember Mendenhall said there was the lack of conformity that the City had with the State’s Affordable Housing Requirements. She said they had simply out-zoned affordable housing, and that would be a piece of leverage in offering solutions. Discussion followed regarding types and variety of facilities and treatments, other facilities in neighboring cities to model such as the Provo Food and Care Center, or the new Midvale facility.
Mayor McAdams said the County’s homeless process was to evaluate and define the collective impact process. He said the City, County, and private sector felt strongly about improving the quality of services. He said silos of funding resulted in silos of services (such as providing meals or providing shelter). He said none of these services were linked and there were people who could not recognize services they needed, let alone have the ability to navigate the system. He said that network was well organized and structured, and the County would lead the conversation regarding networking services. He said Mayor Becker’s coalition was looking at sites and location possibilities and the City had agreed to participate in the services analysis; he said the County would welcome input.
Councilmember Luke expressed concern as to potential for disconnect. Mayor McAdams said the collective impact analysis process results would be coming out in the next few months. Discussion followed regarding the new Housing & Urban Development (HUD) guidelines, with Mayor McAdams stating Salt Lake County and United Way of SLC were front and center and HUD was very interested in the outcome of this process. He said it was ineffective to spend $40,000,000 on an issue and yet have no end goal. He suggested performance measures relative to what counted as success. Ms. Wilson suggested a gap analysis for all service providers as opposed to just coordination.
Mayor McAdams said there was the need to start at the beginning of the process instead of the end. He said there needed to be goals and measures to drive success. He said service providers were originally skeptical but had unanimously endorsed the common agenda to move towards metrics. He said those metrics could lead to tough decisions in the future, but would establish a solid foundation to build from. He said there was the need to share data among providers and coming together with the process would ultimately yield gaps in services or additional solutions. He said there was need for data tools resulting in quick risk and needs assessments, overlap between homelessness and criminal justice, goals, gaps, and how to best leverage the dollar for the biggest return. Max Burdick said the Sherriff was working on managing certain crimes with citations versus jail.
OTHER
Ms. Wilson discussed the investment in the Gateway area, including installation of the planetarium and Children’s Museum. She said they were now at a different point in time, and there were issues in this location for both the City and County. She suggested a shared goal to render this area supercharged.
The group determined there was much more to talk about. Cindy Gust-Jenson suggested a County Council Staff/City Council Staff coalition to share information back and forth and said the City would build that list to share. Salt Lake County determined they would take the initiative and invite the City Council to another joint discussion in the future.
The meeting adjourned at 7:48 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/County Mayor & Council Dinner meeting held June 23, 2015.
clm