The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, May 12, 2015, at 4:28 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, and Stan Penfold.
Absent: Council Members Luke Garrott and Lisa Adams.
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; Russell Weeks, Council Senior Policy Analyst; Robin Hutcheson, Transportation Director; Jill Love, Community and Economic Development Director; Benjamin Roberts, Public Services Compliance Program Director; Sean Murphy, Council Public Policy Analyst; Gina Chamness, Finance Director; Mary Beth Thompson, Finance/Revenue Audit Manager; Lehua Weaver, Council Senior Public Policy Analyst; John Vuyk, City Budget Manager; Jim Cleland, Facilities Program Director; Sean Fyfe, City Architect; Thomas Ward, Public Utilities Deputy Director; David Koltz, Public Utilities Engineer; Andra Ahrens, Public Utilities Pre-Treatment Program Manager; Mary DeLaMare-Schaefer, Community and Economic Development Deputy Director; Jonathan Pappasideris, Senior City Attorney; Cory Lyman, Emergency Management Program Director; Orion Goff, Building Official, and Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder.
Guests in Attendance: Mike Wilson, Metropolitan Water District General Manager, Tom Godfrey, Metropolitan Water Board Member, and Bill Evans, Mayor’s Homeless Commission Member.
Councilmember Rogers presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 4:28 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS 4:28:25 PM
#1. 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.
a. 4:29:13 PM Presentation from the Administration on the Mayor’s recommended budget. View Attachments
Gina Chamness, Mary Beth Thompson, Ben Roberts, Orion Goff, and Cory Lyman briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included emphasizing Mayor/Council priorities, Airport redevelopment project, changes relating to recording property-tax increment, Redevelopment Agency (RDA) revenue transfer, property tax stabilization, property tax collection, rate changes, State statute requiring the City budget property tax based on the amount budgeted in the prior year (Truth-in-Taxation), artificial adjustments, emergency management, structural building safety, new business parking permit fees, ensure freight zones available for intended purposes/access issues, negotiations with Postal Service/FedEx/United Parcel Service, expired meter fee changes, collection issues, fee waivers, business license changes, increase base fees, Sugarhouse District revenue, exempt parking permit fee increase, parking restricted in safety zones, one-time revenue used to balance budget, fee cost analysis, establishing baseline for fees, additional employees, change in gas tax formula/Class C, Regional Athletic Complex (RAC), comprehensive funding plan for computer hardware/software/licensing/operations, Fleet maintenance/replacement, living wage investment, incentives for building improvements, emergency management issues/earthquakes, non-paying property tax owners, property depreciation, sale tax issues, parking meter issues/utilization assessment, bond payments, and new growth formulas.
Councilmember Penfold asked if the City was pursuing modifications with the State/County that would help the City more accurately predict future property tax income. Ms. Chamness said she believed legislative discussions were being held to reexamine the formula and the City would continue to pursue the issue. Councilmember Penfold suggested this was an area where the Council could pursue some messaging to City residents/property owners about the Truth-in-Taxation process. He said often residents felt like this was a tax increase when in reality it was the City’s attempt to stay even with real/personal property income.
Discussion was held on how building/construction permit fees were determined (baseline and subsequent increases). Mr. Goff said the “National Organization” produced a fee schedule every year which was utilized by the City. Councilmember Penfold asked if an internal assessment was performed to determine whether City costs aligned with that code. Mr. Goff said fees for small commercial buildings were compared with other jurisdictions. Councilmember Penfold said he wanted that information included in the budget.
b. 5:48:36 PM General overview of Council Policy issues related to the Mayor’s recommended budget. View Attachments
Jennifer Bruno and Gina Chamness briefed the Council with attachments. Ms. Bruno said there would be more in-depth CIP discussions on May 26th and June 2, 2015 and asked Council Members to submit any questions or concerns to staff in advance of briefings. Councilmember Penfold said during the budget process, he hoped options could be found to establish a long-term priority system to address CIP projects associated with large City departments such as Engineering, Streets, and Parks. He said it would be helpful to have a long-term target for what percentage of the General Fund should be considered for on-going CIP. He said maintenance components also needed to be considered in the equation.
Councilmember Mendenhall asked if the Project Coordinator position proposed in Housing and Neighborhood Development had the capacity to assist with affordable housing issues, 5000 Doors, and other projects that needed the City’s assistance. Ms. Bruno said staff would contact the Administration so they could be prepared to discuss that during the CED briefing.
Councilmember Penfold said he wanted to look at potential ordinance changes to accommodate street tree planting in the City’s central business core, potential modifications for new development around parking lots, and requirements for landscaping/tree plantings in those areas.
Councilmember Penfold requested an assessment of current impact fee funds; including an expiration timeline, information about potential budgetary costs relating to the homelessness issue, and a confirmation about which employees (including department) would be transitioned to receive a “living wage”.
Councilmember Mendenhall requested feedback on salary/benefit comparisons between City Police and Airport Police.
Councilmember LaMalfa requested information on how the City could assess the quality of service (performance measures) being provided by employees and wanted that to continue as part of the budget process. He also requested information on the City’s plans for Wingpointe Golf Course equipment once the course closed.
c. 5:36:50 PM Metro Water - Salt Lake City is part owner of the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), which treats and sells water. The District has several large-scale capital improvement projects that help provide additional water resources and may impose taxes and fees to help pay for such projects. The District’s budget is funded primarily through the collection of property taxes from Salt Lake and Sandy City residents, water sales to the Cities and other surplus customers, and capital assessments. The Council reviews the District budget, but does not formally adopt it. View Attachments
Mike Wilson, Tom Godfrey, and Lehua Weaver briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included bonding issues, employee health care benefits, reflect true water rate costs, consider rate-based system, drought issues,
Councilmember Penfold asked MWD to explore the potential to move to a rate-based system to better reflect true water rate costs to consumers. He also asked MWD to consider, as they performed rate comparisons across the country, whether there was a way to include property tax information to better reflect true costs. Councilmember LaMalfa said he agreed with Councilmember Penfold and suggested scheduling a policy discussion with appropriate stakeholders. Councilmember Rogers asked if MWD was willing to discuss issues with Sandy City. Mr. Wilson said they had a good relationship with Sandy and would discuss the Council’s comments with them.
a. 6:50:36 PM Budget Amendment No. 4 for Fiscal Year 2014-15. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. This amendment contains a number of proposed adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2014-15 Budget, including:
•$1 million for City fleet replacement;
•$473,900 for the Regional Athletic Complex, which will open in 2015. Funds will be used to hire a superintendent and purchase additional supplies and equipment;
•$380,000 for Police Department laptop replacement; and other amendments. (H1) View Attachments
Jennifer Bruno, John Vuyk, David Everitt, Jim Cleland, Sean Fyfe, and Gina Chamness briefed the Council with attachments. Discussion was held on the following items.
Section A: New Items
A-1: Police Laptops for new recruits ($28,500 – General Fund)
A-2: Police Laptop Replacement ($380,000 – IMS Fund) Councilmember LaMalfa said there needed to be some type of policy discussion regarding funding ordinary maintenance expenses outside the budget process (include Council input). Council Members questioned why this was not being handled through the normal budget process.
A-7: City & County Building Pedestrian Lighting Replacement ($352,340 – CIP Fund) Councilmember Luke requested information/location about which lights were being replaced and if any had remaining life. Councilmember LaMalfa requested information about whether the proposal was an appropriate expense for the Lighting Enterprise Fund.
A-10: Public Service Maintenance Facility Driveway Concrete Failure ($125,000 – General Fund) Councilmember Rogers requested information about the original architect/design of the project.
A-13: Administrative Fees Charge to Golf by General Fund ($197,926 – Golf Fund one-time funding) Discussion was held on reimbursing Administrative fees. A straw poll was taken on support to find other funding sources to cover administrative fees for various departments listed in the attachment. All Council Members present were in favor, except Councilmember LaMalfa, who was opposed. Ms. Gust-Jenson said staff would come back to the Council with funding recommendations. Councilmember LaMalfa suggested using some of the revenue to fund the “living wage” program. Ms. Bruno said that would present some accounting challenges and would get back to the Council.
A-14: Fleet Replacement Funding ($1 million – General Fund one-time funding) Councilmember Mendenhall expressed concern about the large amount being proposed. She requested further details/priorities (including fleet size and vehicle types) about how proposed funding would be used. She said she preferred to dedicate the funding to street improvements. Ms. Bruno said the Fleet Budget would be presented to the Council on May 26, 2015. Councilmember Mendenhall also requested a cost savings breakdown as part of the briefing.
Ms. Bruno said Sections B, C, D, F, and G were all mainly housekeeping in nature. She said staff copied language from the Administration’s transmittal into each item for convenience.
Ms. Bruno said the final section was Council Added Items. She said Councilmember Adams withdrew her request for Sugarhouse fireworks at the last meeting but there had been a recent issue raised by Visit Salt Lake for a potential funding request. Councilmember Penfold said the $57,000 request related to Outdoor Retailers. He said they asked for contributions from State, County, and City to do an expansion of their outdoor display space. He said the City’s portion was approximately $57,000. He said it was a three-year commitment which would need to be incorporated into future budgets. A straw poll was taken on supporting the proposed funding. All Council Members present were in favor.
Councilmember LaMalfa spoke about the success with Downtown Festival pocket parks. He said suggested the Council continue supporting that program in hopes that it could grow beyond six arts projects. He said the thought funding could come from either the City or RDA. Councilmember Penfold said the Council might consider splitting it as well. He said the issue needed to at least be included in future budget discussions.
b. Local Building Authority Budget Amendment No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2014-15. (Item G1) No discussion was held.
#3. 8:13:27 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CITY’S WASTEWATER POLLUTANT STANDARDS. UNDER THE PROPOSAL, THE MAXIMUM LIMITS, KNOWN AS LOCAL LIMITS, FOR A NUMBER OF POLLUTANTS PER LITER OF WASTEWATER WOULD BE CHANGED. View Attachments
Lehua Weaver, Tom Ward, David Koltz, and Andra Ahrens briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included capacity to discharge more pollutants, environmental impacts, review discharge permit fees/monthly sewer rates, State public engagement/hearing process, lowering limits, 30% safety factor, potential impact on businesses, potential to discourage polluting businesses, Clean Water Act requires technical basis for calculations, uniform calculation methods, preserve capacity, industry regulations, historical discharge thresholds, violation/air quality issues, uniform concentration methods, annual review process, pre-treatment/dilution issues, and monitoring process/sampling.
Discussion was held on Council Members concerns about proposed changes which would allow existing businesses to increase their pollutant output. Council Members expressed interest in preserving the City’s capacity.
Councilmember Mendenhall said she was reluctant to allow existing businesses to increase capacity. She said capacity needed to be preserved and did not want that to be the issue when businesses were permitting for more pollution output. Councilmember LaMalfa said the City was significantly expanding levels with the new allocation method.
Councilmember Penfold suggested utilizing some type of application process for businesses wishing to expand pollution output, rather than just basing it on the City’s treatment capacity. He said the City needed to be as conservative as possible when looking at reallocating the numbers. Councilmember Mendenhall suggested the Council could write an intent statement stating if the City allowed expanded limits, the primary reason would be for future economic expansion and protection of the City’s capacity with the forward thinking that those limits only go down.
Ms. Gust-Jenson said the Council could advance the plan exactly how it was last year and then continue this conversion later with more policy emphasis. Mr. Ward said new local limits based on a technical basis, were adopted and submitted to the State and the old numbers were no longer valid. Discussion was held on having PU work more closely with the Council before submitting reports/numbers to the State.
Councilmember Luke suggested the Council approve the proposal with some type of intent language and with an understanding that PU would immediately begin a new process with the State using new methodology reflective of the Council’s discussion. He said PU needed to inform businesses they were starting a new process and then bring the new proposal back to the Council for consideration/adoption.
Councilmember Mendenhall suggested creating more evaluation criteria for existing businesses to expand their use. She said future permit applications needed other criteria than just capacity. She suggested checking with the Department of Air Quality about factors they considered with their permits.
Councilmember Rogers asked PU to re-work the numbers and come back to the Council with a new proposal, including reserving future potential for new businesses coming to the City (intent language). He encouraged Council Members to tour City facilities to better understand the discharge/treatment process.
#4. 6:15:38 PM RECEIVE AN UPDATE FROM THE ADMINISTRATION ABOUT ITS WORK ON HOMELESS SERVICES AND PROJECTS. Specifically, the Council will be briefed on the latest from the Homeless Services Site Evaluation Commission, case studies on service models from other cities, and a timeline for the Commission. The Council will also be updated on the development of permanent supportive housing, new locker programs, holiday foot patrol report, and other projects. View Attachments
Sean Murphy, Mary DeLaMare-Schaefer, Jill Love, and Bill Evans briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included priorities, commitments, values, case studies from other cities, safety measures, human dignity, storage bins, privacy issues, affordable housing options, medical services, crime/foot patrols, homeless movement to Westside, increasing encampments/seasonal cycle, long-term solutions, distributing burden among local communities, day services, panhandling issues, outreach efforts, identifying service gaps, community support, and capacity for additional building space/expansion.
Councilmember LaMalfa asked what the appropriate course of action was if residents were concerned about un-sheltered people and knew about encampments in their neighborhoods. Mr. Evans said that was an issue that needed further discussion/review. Ms. DeLaMare-Schaefer said the Police Department also needed to be involved.
Councilmember Luke said when visiting other cities such as Washington DC, Miami, and New York he was never approached by panhandlers and suggested contacting them to find out their approach/methods. He said the problem was getting worse in Salt Lake and steps needed to be taken to address the issue.
Councilmember LaMalfa asked about the process going forward. Mr. Evans said the Commission was scheduled to meet Friday, May 22nd and again in August, November, and December. He said they would look at criteria based on success factors, values, commitments, and actual criteria that would be incorporated in a homeless facility. He said by August, the Commission could begin to structure how that might look for Salt Lake and then in November begin talking about potential sites to recommend to the Council/Mayor. He said by December a firm recommendation should be made.
Councilmember Rogers suggested holding small off-line group meetings to discuss issues relating to the “Controversial Homelessness Consultant” and the “Lazarus Project”. Mr. Evans said he wanted to reiterate no connections existed between the Commission and the Consultant.
#5. HOLD A FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION REGARDING 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 property owners. Council Members will receive updated information and discuss policy options. The property levy would be paid by residents to cover their share of operation, maintenance and electrical energy costs of the lighting district. Residents pay 75% of the annual expenses for the district ($255,637.49), while the City pays the remaining 25% ($85,212.50). View Attachments
Item pulled.
#6. THE COUNCIL WILL DISCUSS ITS POSITION ON THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF THE UTAH STATE PRISON, HOW TO ENGAGE AND INFORM THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE PROPOSAL, AND THE PROPOSAL’S IMPLICATIONS FOR SALT LAKE CITY. The Prison Relocation Commission plans to hold public information events about its studies of potential sites, including an open house May 20 from 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Utah State Fair Park. The Commission plans in August to recommend a new location to Governor Gary Herbert and the Legislature. View Attachments
Item pulled.
#7. RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION REGARDING A POTENTIAL UPCOMING APPLICATION THAT THE UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY (UTA) MAY BE MAKING TO THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN THEIR LATEST ROUND OF TIGER (TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT GENERATING ECONOMIC RECOVERY) GRANT FUNDING. View Attachments
Item pulled.
#8. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business. View Attachments
No discussion was held.
#9. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
No discussion was held.
#10. 7:25:03 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). (CLOSED SESSION HELD IN ROOM 326)
Councilmember LaMalfa moved and Councilmember Mendenhall 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. A roll call vote was taken. Council Members Mendenhall, Penfold, LaMalfa, Luke, and Rogers voted aye. Council Members Garrott and Adams were absent. See File M 15-2 for Sworn Statement.
In Attendance: Council Members Rogers, LaMalfa, Mendenhall, Luke, and Penfold.
Absent: Council Members Garrott and Adams.
Others in Attendance: Margaret Plane, Cindy Gust-Jenson, David Everitt, and Jonathan Pappasideris.
The Closed Session adjourned at 8:13 p.m.
The meeting Work Session meeting adjourned at 9:04 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 May 12, 2015.
sc