The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, March 3, 2015, at 2:13 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; Jill Love, Mayor’s Deputy 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; Jan Aramaki, Senior Council Policy Analyst; Allison Rowland, Council Policy Analyst; Sean Murphy, Council Policy Analyst; Neil Lindberg, Council Legal Advisor; Robin Hutcheson, Transportation Director; Michael Akerlow, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Nora Shepard, Planning Director; Carl Leith, Senior Planner; 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, Senior City Attorney; Jeff Snelling, City Engineer; Tammy Hunsaker, Community & Economic Development Housing Coordinator; Nick Norris, Planning Manager; John Anderson, Principal Planner; Garth Limberg, Financial Analyst; and Cindi Mansell, City Recorder.
Guests in Attendance: Pamela Silberman, Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board Chair; and Natalie Gochnour, University of Utah Associate Dean/David Eccles School of Business and Chief Economist/Senior Advisor to the Salt Lake Chamber.
Councilmember Garrott presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 2:13 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. 2:13:57 PM RECEIVE A WRITTEN BRIEFING ON THE PROGRESS OF THE COUNCIL’S LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014-15. Legislative intents are formal requests the Council makes of the Administration. This briefing will include updates on a variety of matters, including:
•community improvement grants;
•a City Cemetery study; and
•maintaining business districts.
#2. 2:14:20 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON THE HSOUING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (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
Sean Murphy, Mike Akerlow, Tammy Hunsaker, and Pam Silberman briefed the Council from PowerPoint/attachments. Mr. Murphy said this was an entirely different direction and the first time the City was recommending a shift of funding for Community and Economic Development. Ms. Silberman provided background on the plan/focus, and shifting the mindset to eradicate poverty early on by identifying root causes. Mr. Akerlow summarized that due to decreasing funding and increasing need, Salt Lake City was taking a strategic and geographic approach to targeting federal funds.
Ms. Hunsaker provided a Consolidated Plan Overview, consisting of process, needs assessment, and housing market analysis. She said Salt Lake City’s annual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) award had decreased by $1.4 million over the past decade. Discussion followed regarding increased housing need, education, health, transportation, economic development, challenges, increased homelessness, increased capital improvement needs, market failing to serve extremely low income households, and protected classes at risk for unfair lending and rental discrimination.
Inquiry was raised as to the shift in policy regarding the interpretation that CDBG would not necessarily need to fund the 1% for public art required of all capital projects by City Ordinance. Mr. Akerlow said due to timing, Administration was recommending phasing out funding for public art projects. Councilmember Penfold expressed concern as to fairness to neighborhoods, art funding removal, history of reluctance to provide funding, and appearance of a possible contradiction in policy. Mr. Akerlow said Staff could return with additional information.
Councilmember LaMalfa expressed concern with the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and how to fund high quality housing development as part of the plan. Mr. Akerlow explained funds were not used for multifamily, but primarily for single family. Councilmember LaMalfa inquired as to criteria or a comprehensive housing policy to deliver a high standard product and how to measure/report change and numbers in a neighborhood. Mr. Akerlow said Staff would return with additional information.
Further discussion followed as to previous needs and prioritization, concern with Citywide communication and coordination, how to best leverage this as a City system, Staff (CED, Parks, RDA)returning with strategy ideas to truly vest in neighborhoods, provide check-ins relative to different projects going on, working with Planning to create language to determine housing policy standards for quality materials and design, increased investment in public and private infrastructure, human capital development, measuring new jobs created, and associated elements of economic development. Councilmember Luke said he liked the 5-year period and felt it would give Council a chance to see how all components work together towards the overall goal to encourage neighborhood investments.
Mr. Murphy discussed larger housing projects, particularly areas investing with the consolidated plan, and whether the City had been building some less-attractive projects. He said if they were not being built with City funds, resources could be tethered to certain design elements, including how funds were prioritized (such as the Design Review Board guiding private investments in the City). It was noted that Staff would need to provide additional information to the Council Office before March 24, 2015 to allow for public process and to prepare funding recommendations prior to HUD’s May deadline.
#3. 3:20:08 PM INTERVIEW JILL REMINGTON LOVE, PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT AS THE SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. View Attachment
Councilmember Garrott said Ms. Love’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration.
#4. 3:30:02 PM HOLD A DISCUSSION WITH NATALIE GOCHNOUR; ASSOCIATE DEAN, DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH AND CHIEF ECONOMIST AND SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE SALT LAKE CHAMBER, REGARDING THE ENTERPRISE SLC PROCESS. The City has engaged Ms. Gochnour to guide this process and establish a vision and strategic plan for Economic Development in Salt Lake City. This is an opportunity for the Council to provide input to the process. View Attachments
Jill Love and Natalie Gochnour addressed the Council. Ms. Gochnour referenced the schedule of events and shared the Enterprise Roundtable Agenda. She described the effort to reach out and learn from key individuals, desire for Council input relative to the vision of the promise for Salt Lake City, with the ultimate goal to define the future desirable destination for Salt Lake City economy.
Councilmember Mendenhall offered comparison to Ogden’s designation as the outdoor recreation destination and said she felt businesses were locating up north and not in SLC; what was causing the City to miss out on that investment. She requested greater investment in and focus on support of industrial business, neighborhood nodes, and the demographic future.
Councilmember Rogers expressed his support for this endeavor. He said it was fitting/timely because the like-mindedness for economic development had not been visible for many years. He further referenced zoning changes necessary to attract or relocate business, importance of City’s livability and walkability in the downtown, association with transportation, bikes/trails, and potential for benefits to be realized in conjunction with Google coming to SLC.
Councilmember Luke said Salt Lake had not done a good job of selling the City, its amenities, or widely promoting its business opportunities. He suggested consideration of Foreign Trade Zone expansion and said there were things that could be done which had not been done in the past. He suggested using tools such as Airport proximity to consider and enhance business development.
Councilmember Penfold suggested a type of corporate downtown campus; a combination of housing, corporate, residential, office, campus, etc. He inquired as to broadening the genetic/medical component of this community. He cited the concept of missed opportunities at the Airport as a mega-economic driver hub, attracting green industry, sustainability, and reflection in various industries.
Councilmember Adams discussed parking and family, a way of inviting people to come try downtown, and suggested modifying free parking meter hours to enhance the customer service.
Councilmember LaMalfa suggested potential influence of Plan Salt Lake and its guiding principles with this process and the attempt to express what residents wanted to see. He said the quality of infrastructure in manufacturing areas, particularly roads/internet/power supply within the Centennial Industrial Park, making sure industries do not contribute to air quality/water pollution/supply issues, sympathy to geographic and topographic issues, potential expansion of the University Research Park, how to expand/realize benefits of having educated people close to area neighborhoods, maintain leadership as retail center, and professional sports (football). He said Salt Lake City received recognition as one of the best cities in the country for economic upward mobility and hoped this plan would include this concept.
Ms. Gochnour said SLC was not seen on the leading edge relative to a technical and innovation hub. She said older neighborhoods definitely make SLC unique; she said the challenge of this process was to consider a broader vision for the City and strategies to make that happen. She said there appeared to be consensus that SLC was not as economic-development minded as they could be. She said industries (both small and large) indicated that SLC was not a friendly City. Inquiry was raised about unfriendly specifics, with Ms. Gochnour stating there was the need for better customer service from City employees relative to economic development efforts and branding of the City in exporting strategy. She said there was need to maintain upward mobility for the residents of SLC as a target/goal/aspiration. Ms. Gochnour encouraged the Council to provide any follow-up or additional comments in this quest to change the existing culture.
#5. 4:28:23 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON PROPOSED DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR APARTMENT AND MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS FOR LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND LANDMARK SITES PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. PLNPCM2012-00870. The proposed guidelines are designed to maintain the historic character of multifamily buildings by protecting historic features and preventing out-of-character alterations. The guidelines also establish how new construction can more readily reflect the rich tradition of apartment design in the City. There are not currently design guidelines specifically related to apartment and multifamily buildings in historic areas. (Petitioner, Mayor Ralph Becker)
(Item H2) View Attachments
Nick Tarbet, Carl Leith, Nora Shepard, and Michaela Oktay briefed the Council from attachments. Ms. Shepard said the proposal was valuable because it provided predictability for everyone as well as an opportunity to help constituents understand a framework for developing their plans.
Councilmember Adams expressed concern the guidelines were detailed/lengthy, and that people might miss some details. She said it might be helpful to prepare an overview page with hyperlinks to various areas of information. She stated there were many photographic examples of new construction that did not appear to be from Salt Lake City and suggested including local examples.
#6. 5:06:09 PM HOLD A DISCUSSION TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE RECENT FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) RULINGS RELATING TO INTERNET SERVICE AND HOW THESE RULINGS MIGHT RELATE TO CITY FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS.
Neil Lindberg, Brian Roberts, and Sean Murphy briefed the Council from a Federal Communications Commission Announcement relative to the FCC promotion of strong, sustainable rules to protect the open internet. Mr. Roberts provided background on the FCC announcement and how that applied to the City’s local regulatory framework relative to franchise agreements. He said the final FCC order had yet to be released so all the City had at this point was the announcement; it would then be subject to the Legislative process, potential litigation, and he felt it would be several years to realize its full meaning.
#7. 5:23:35 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW UP BRIEFING ON THE FINAL 9 LINE MASTER PLAN. THIS PLANNING DOCUMENT FOR THE 9 LINE CORRIDOR, WHICH FOLLOWS THE OLD UNION PACIFIC RAIL LINE ON 900 SOUTH FROM 200 WEST TO THE SURPLUS CANAL, IS AN EFFORT TO PROVIDE A MAJOR PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE LINK CONNECTING THE CITY'S EAST AND WEST NEIGHBORHOODS PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. PLNPCM2014-0004. View Attachments The 9 Line Master Plan identifies:
•ways to utilize the space, including development ideas for vacant parcels along the trail;
•plans for the continuation of the trail west to the Surplus Canal; and
•necessary connections between nearby neighborhoods, amenities and activity nodes. (Petitioner – Mayor Ralph Becker) (Item D2)
Nick Tarbet, Nora Shepard, Nick Norris, John Anderson, and Mike Akerlow briefed the Council from attachments. Mr. Tarbet said the Council last considered this item in September and changes requested at that time were highlighted/underlined in red.
Concern was expressed regarding an area plan including details specific to parcels (Navajo Street) and excluding residential housing. Councilmember LaMalfa said there were multiple blocks along the trail that should not be considered for residential housing and thought there would be stronger language in support of open space. He said there were existing parcels zoned R-2; he discussed the public engagement process involved with this plan and expressed concern with presenting false expectations to participating community members. Discussion took place regarding various types of housing concepts that might work, increased density struggles, and open-land opportunities.
Mr. Norris referenced the West Salt Lake Master Plan and its key concept to develop “nodes”. He said there were limitations to where households could be added in this area; some properties near the corridor would have conflicting policies in that the Plan did not support rezoning in terms of density. He said the concept was to keep options open; Staff’s intent was to identify key spots along the corridor that could possibly include residential nodes. Ms. Shepard said the Plan would be followed with zoning, and that would be where use/density/footprint control came in to determine which uses made sense. She said this discussion contained a broader view and it was beneficial for the Plan to contain options.
Straw Poll: A unanimous Straw Poll was taken to include language for the 1100 West closure to lengthen uninterrupted portions along the 9-Line trail as proposed.
Discussion followed regarding consideration of the Navajo parcel as residential housing, the suggested six-lot configuration, including space for other uses, and whether Staff was willing to consider an alternative configuration. Mr. Akerlow said Staff would consider alternative options. Councilmember LaMalfa said there was nothing binding the City to build a high-quality housing development in this area or to sell it to a low-quality developer. He said there was not appropriate zoning or Master Plan support. Mr. Norris said the West Side Master Plan discussed development fitting use and scale and included the option for small targeted development. He said it would entail a rezone and not a master plan change.
Straw Poll: Council Members Adams, Garrott, Luke, and Penfold were opposed; Council Members LaMalfa, Mendenhall, and Rogers were in favor (failed 4-3) that if commercial use was considered impractical for the large City-owned parcel on Navajo Street just north of 9 Line, the parcel could be converted into a park or open space to facilitate either a community garden or trailway oriented park; and the City-owned parcel should not be considered for residential housing.
Further discussion followed regarding options, with Mr. Anderson stating this was a very long, odd-shaped parcel and Staff could return with a proposal including a mix of open space and housing.
Straw Poll: A unanimous Straw Poll was taken for the Navajo Node Program Component 1 - that any residential use on this parcel should include other program components such as play grounds, trailway-oriented art, neighborhood commercial, and community gardens.
Straw Poll: A unanimous Straw Poll was taken relative to the Oxbow Node that the narrow vacant properties adjacent to the 9 Line, west of Jordan Park extending to the Surplus Canal, should be converted into a linear park and should be considered for possible rezoning to open space and added into the City’s park inventory.
#8. RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON THE CITY’S ROLE IN A REQUEST BY TWO BUSINESSES, OEMETA AND RED WING SHOES, TO OBTAIN FOREIGN TRADE ZONE STATUS FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED OUTSIDE THE CURRENT DESIGNATED PARCEL. Foreign Trade Zones are locations throughout the United States where there are delayed or reduced duty payments on foreign merchandise to incentivize importers, manufacturers and distributors to locate in the U.S. instead of outsourcing internationally. Salt Lake City’s Foreign Trade Zone 30 is a 55-acre parcel located at 1105 South 4800 West. Salt Lake City would need to sponsor the companies’ applications, which will be submitted to the Foreign Trade Zone Board in Washington D.C. View Attachments
Item not held.
#9. 6:16:35 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ABOUT AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT LEVY ON 663 PROPERTIES IN SPECIAL LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 3, KNOWN AS L03. This year’s assessment involves some significant increases for the property owners. The revenue generated by the levy would be used to pay the residents’ share of operating, maintenance and electrical energy costs of the lighting district. The City pays 25% of the annual expenses for the district ($85,212.50), while residents pay the remaining 75% ($255,637.49). (Item G3). View Attachments
Jan Aramaki, Lehua Weaver, Cindy Gust-Jenson, and Garth Limburg briefed the Council from attachments. Ms. Aramaki said the 2015 fees proposed for some areas of the District were significantly higher than 2014 fees. She said out of the 20 neighborhoods that made up Lighting District L03, eight neighborhoods had a zero percent increase while increases for the other twelve neighborhoods ranged from 2.88 percent to 151.96 percent. Mr. Limburg discussed the annual budget process, street lighting assessment billings, and increases to some because of extra-ordinary maintenance. He said Board of Equalization meetings would be available in September 2015 for all lighting assessment clients to be able to discuss their billings. Ms. Gust-Jenson said this was a mid-term fee increase and the Council’s internal policy was to hold a public hearing whenever there was a fee increase.
The Council discussed the dramatic increase, associated need for improved public engagement, increased transparency in detailing explanation/rationale as to changes, possible phasing of new rates, option for public input, predictability, accountability, advance notice, and method/theory behind the establishment of special lighting districts. Ms. Gust-Jenson said she would not recommend consideration of the truth-in-taxation process relative to fees as it related to City taxes.
Straw Poll: The Council voted unanimously that moving forward in special lighting districts; Administration should provide more information, more transparency as to reason for increases, and advance notice.
Straw Poll: The Council voted unanimously to conduct a public hearing on L03 and provide notification to all property owners.
Straw Poll: The Council voted unanimously that any fee increase in special lighting districts over 50% required the City to phase in the fee increase over a period of three years; and for the assessment funds to be self-funded, and not require General Fund subsidy.
Ms. Weaver said when discussions took place to establish the lighting funds, the overall response of property owners was not to include or tie the assessments to utility billings. She said the Council still intended to conduct additional discussion on private lighting and Special Assessment Areas in the future. She recommended Staff return with additional information or scenarios for deferred fee/phases.
#10. 6:44:59 PM HOLD A DISCUSSION AND RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING MATTERS OF INTEREST TO THE CITY THAT ARISE DURING THE 2015 STATE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
Lynn Pace updated the Council on the 2015 State Legislative Session. Items of discussion included gas tax, local option sales tax, prison relocation, wood burning stove ban, ground transportation, Healthy Utah, Care Utah, State Fair Park renewed lease, potential soccer stadium, exploring long-term uses to revitalize that property, etc. Mr. Pace said there were ten days left in the session and difficult decisions remain.
#11. 8:27:14 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.
#12. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
Item not held.
#13. 6:56:26 PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF UTAH CODE §52-4-205(1)(c) TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION AND §78B-1-137 TO DISCUSS ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED. (CLOSED SESSION HELD IN ROOM 326)
Councilmember Luke moved and Councilmember Mendenhall seconded to enter into Closed Session for the purpose of §52-4-205(1)(c)to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation and §78B-1-137 to discuss Attorney-Client matters that are privileged. A roll call vote was taken. Council Members Mendenhall, Penfold, Luke, LaMalfa, Rogers, Adams, and Garrott voted aye. 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, Ralph Becker, Margaret Plane, Jennifer Bruno, David Everitt, Jill Love, Russell Weeks, Lehua Weaver, Lynn Pace, and Cindi Mansell.
The Closed Session adjourned at 7:32 p.m.
The Work Session 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 March 3, 2015.
clm