The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, May 5, 2015, at 1:18 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street.
In Attendance: Council Members James Rogers, Luke Garrott, Kyle LaMalfa, Erin Mendenhall, Lisa Adams, and Stan Penfold.
Absent: Councilmember Charlie Luke.
Staff in Attendance: Jennifer Bruno, Executive Council Deputy Director; David Everitt, Mayor’s Chief of Staff; Margaret Plane, City Attorney; Lehua Weaver, Council Policy Analyst; Gina Chamness, Finance Director; Sean Murphy, Council Policy Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Senior Policy Analyst; Nick Norris, Planning Manager; Jill Love, Community and Economic Development Director; Daniel Echeverria, Principal Planner; Michael Akerlow, Housing and Neighborhood Development Manager; Todd Reeder, Parks and Public Lands Program Director; Nora Shepard, Planning Director; Maureen Riley, Airport Director; Ryan Tesch, Airport Finance Director; Nancy Monteith, Parks and Public Lands Park Planner; and Cindi Mansell, City Recorder.
Guests in Attendance: Terry Feveryear, Housing Authority of Salt Lake City Executive Director; Dave Miner, Housing Authority of Salt Lake City Financial Advisor; and Søren Simonsen, Impact Hub President/Co-Founder.
Councilmember Garrott presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 1:18 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. 1:19:19 PM COUNCIL PRIORITY PROJECTS. View Attachments The Council will hold a follow-up discussion on the action steps for the following 2015 Priority projects:
* capital improvement program (CIP) process and funding options;
* review and assignment of active projects; and
* (tentative) initiative to explore a possible bond on the November ballot that would fund open space and outdoor recreation needs in the City.
The following Council priorities are ongoing:
* funding for the goals and projects in the Westside Master Plan, and developing an implementation model that can be used for future master plans;
* economic development efforts in the City;
* rebuilding the City’s urban forest; and
* updating impact fees.
Lehua Weaver, Sean Murphy, Jennifer Bruno, and Gina Chamness briefed the Council with attachments. Councilmember Garrott asked Mr. Murphy to reiterate staff’s understanding of what Council wanted to accomplish with the CIP process. Mr. Murphy said items discussed during the Council’s Planning Workshop included more transparency, better understanding of how projects were selected/managed through completion, two-year CIP cycle, concept of distributing monies for district specific projects (community engagement component needed), how/where Council wanted to see increased funding, and issues relating to addressing deferred maintenance including overlapping/tiered projects.
Council Members comments on the issue included interest in discussing how master plan implementation was prioritized in the CIP process (old and new plans), explore potential to systematically attack deferred maintenance (sidewalks, streets, etc.) and consider a funding source that was tied to some type of bonding process, explore additional funding that might come to the Council through transit/transportation (include in budget discussions), potential to see CIP projects associated with upcoming Transit Master Plan, potential to fund Citywide projects and/or district specific projects (obtain a priority list from each district), establish quality standards Citywide, utilize CIP for improvements rather than maintenance, accomplish one large project somewhere in the City rather than distribute money for district projects, identify useful life of City assets, obtain/analyze information about standard residential streets, and find ways to fund maintenance through the ongoing General Fund budget.
Straw Polls:
•Council support for maintaining Citywide funding for certain projects, such as deferred maintenance or routine maintenance, other large infrastructure improvements spanning District borders, regardless of whether a district-specific method was allocated for CIP funds. All Council Members present were in support.
•Council support for a Citywide maintenance standard. All Council Members present were in support.
•Council support for Administration to present quality standards and report back to the Council on the achievement of those as part of performance measures (also report on non-performance/gaps) in the regular budget process. All Council Members present were in support.
Discussion was held on a potential straw poll to address/fund deferred maintenance issues. Comments included reserving CIP for improvements rather than maintenance, was the word deferred a “term-of-art”, need to have a clear definition of what deferred maintenance meant (how did other departments define this), define critical deferred maintenance versus routine maintenance (definition consistent across departments), establish a maintenance standard, hold a discussion about maintenance “catch-up”, additional information needed on actual number of deferred maintenance projects, reluctance to exclude CIP as funding source, quality assessment to determine replacement needs, some standards exist in current ordinances, involve neighborhoods in decisions, massive and incomprehensible project list, determining priorities for an annual maintenance standard was a critical component of the process, and determining Citywide routine maintenance items. No vote was taken following discussion.
•Council support to set aside funds for district-specific projects. Council Members Adams, Penfold, and Mendenhall were opposed. Council Members Garrott and Rogers were in favor. Councilmember LaMalfa abstained.
•Support for Council staff to work with the Administration to identify opportunities for coordination with master plans in the CIP planning process. All Council Members present were in support.
#2. 2:21:03 PM PLAN SALT LAKE. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing on Plan Salt Lake, a Citywide master plan designed to create high level policies and vision that will guide the community for the next 20 years. (Petition No. PLNPCM2011-00682) View Attachments
Sean Murphy and Nick Norris briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included Administration to present plan to various communities once adopted, finalize Citywide equity policy, define business node versus business district, call out nodal connections in plan, increase frequency of transit service, “Aging in Place” component in all master plans, cost-of-living index, protecting inexpensive housing stock, plan flexibility, 20/40 housing targets, increased diversity of housing choices/mixed-income, under-housing, cost burden, high-income housing, guiding principles, add Citywide component, consistency with Citywide business nodes, potential impact on zoning, economic development plan component, increase tech presence, measurable targets, readily available data, and tie economy to strategic industry cluster.
Councilmember Mendenhall expressed interest in developing new initiatives relating to preserving low-cost housing options.
Councilmember Garrott said he heard Council support for availability of affordable housing across the City in every Council district and distribution of mixed-income housing to include market rate and income-targeted housing options. Councilmember Mendenhall suggesting adding something about Citywide distribution to the guiding principles. Councilmember Garrott asked staff to add that as a straw poll question for later consideration.
Councilmember Penfold said maybe this was not the right time but thought it would be helpful to define the distinction between business node versus business district. Mr. Norris said he thought that might be better defined in community master plans. He said they could offer more structure around what a neighborhood business node was verses a business district to provide more uniformity when terms were utilized in various plans (reference consistent themes, regional/local services, zoning impacts, etc).
Straw Polls:
•Council support for amending the principal guiding statement for the housing section to include access for a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City providing basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. All Council Members present were in support. Councilmember Penfold was absent for straw poll.
•Business districts versus business nodes (bracketed for further discussion)
•Council support to prioritize the need to connect nodes to each other and connect residents to those nodes. All Council Members present were in support. Councilmember Penfold was absent for straw poll.
•Council support to add terminology emphasizing increased frequency of transit service options in neighborhoods. All Council Members present were in support. Councilmember Penfold was absent for straw poll.
•Council support to add considerations for “Aging in Place” in this and other master plans to relevant sections (to be determined by staff). All Council Members present were in support. Councilmember Penfold was absent for straw poll.
•Council support to add a “distance to businesses” metric as other metrics were included from residential units to transit, residential units to parks/other amenities, and residential unit to business nodes. All Council Members present were in support. Councilmember Penfold was absent for straw poll.
Discussion was held on items to focus on after plan adoption such as “Packaging for Market” and “Citywide Equity Policy”. Mr. Norris said Planning agreed with the Council’s suggestion to add “digital inclusion” to the “Equity” section. Councilmember LaMalfa said comments were made about adding storm water equity and transit. Other comments included ensuring residents had access to necessary amenities/services, privately provided amenities, high-speed internet access, recognize not all amenities/services were governmentally provided, ensure equitable distribution of services such as education, transportation, day-care, etc. and opportunity index.
Council Members expressed interest in adding the following initiative to the list: “pursue equitable access to privately provisioned services and amenities Citywide”.
Councilmember Garrott asked how the Council should move forward. He said the economy section had not been addressed to the Council’s satisfaction so that issue needed to come back for additional discussion. Mr. Norris said based on the straw polls, his staff would work on those items and update them in the plan. Councilmember Garratt said he welcomed off-line conversations with CED about the interface between economic development in the planning document and welcomed input/guidance about how those things should be related because it was one of the Council’s priorities for the year.
#3. 3:36:53 PM INFORMAL DISCUSSION ABOUT LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE PORTLAND/SEATTLE TRIP. The Council will discuss lessons learned from a recent trip to the Pacific Northwest. Several Council Members visited Portland and Seattle in April to learn about the cities’ approaches to providing homeless services. Some Council Members also attended the national American Planning Association Conference.
Councilmember Mendenhall, Councilmember LaMalfa, Russell Weeks, Sean Murphy, Jennifer Bruno and Nora Shepard briefed the Council. Comments included housing with on-site services, day-center, emergency shelter beds/services, utilize retired police officers/cadets, clean/safe team, permanent supportive housing, large waiting lists, dispersed shelters, available outdoor public spaces, lockers provided, four-week stays, combination facilities, health care needs, drug/mental health issues, case management services, “housing forward” concept, more day-care space needed, voucher program, relocate support back to other communities, chronic alcoholism, no sobriety requirements, enhanced on-site services, shelter rules, reduced alcohol consumption, savings from reduced hospital visits, construct long-term permanent supportive housing, fund critical support systems, provide housing stability, local option sales tax dedicated to homeless services, different political environment, homeless youth issues, one-on-one approach, open-air drug markets, street-life activities, panhandling issues, tent cities/camps allowed, and move people from emergency shelters to permanent housing.
Discussion was held on insights gained from the conference. Comments included zoning tools, affordable housing component required with up-zoning, neighborhood level targets for affordability/housing mix profile, every city required to have an affordable housing plan, understanding how neighboring communities approached housing, housing co-op concept/multi-family ownership product, shared ownership with municipality, ensure land costs do not impede affordable housing, mixed-income developments being essential, incentives such as impact fee rebates, property tax rebates, housing tax, etc., verify income of residents living in low-income housing/HUD enforcement, revoke certificate of occupancy, reduced housing stock from rent controlled areas, link parks for bikes, make city pedestrian friendly, importance of sidewalks, and how to regulate AirB&B (vacation rental website) proprietors.
Councilmember LaMalfa said he met with the Deputy Assistant Secretary/Office of Community Planning and Development who offered to do a conference call if any Council Members were interested in discussing affordable housing issues. He said he would work with Council Members to find the best day.
#4. 4:25:47 PM HOUSING BRIEFING. The Council will be briefed about the future of housing in Salt Lake City. The Administration has focused on data gathering and public outreach to better understand how to address the City’s housing needs and will present that information to the Council. View Attachments
Michael Akerlow, Jennifer Bruno, and Jill Love briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included all neighborhoods to provide a true mix of housing incomes/housing types, inclusive choices for residents of all incomes, housing vouchers, funding mechanisms (what are other municipalities doing), housing levees/bonds/fees, Transit Station Area (TSA) inclusionary zoning, potential to utilize Redevelopment Agency (RDA), developer incentives, neighborhoods influence future earnings, consider more mixed-income policy questions, multi-family ownership opportunities, 5000-Doors imitative, call-to-action, develop community outreach, Neighborhoods of Opportunity (what component does housing play to areas of opportunity), and how to incorporate opportunity in City housing efforts.
Councilmember Penfold requested that City/RDA staff work together to address housing issues (including funding mechanisms/incentives). Councilmember Rogers requested a drop-down menu of all incentives based on opportunities available to developers/stakeholders. He said a position could be created for someone to understand/facilitate incentives. Councilmember Mendenhall suggested creating legislation requiring developers to replace any low-income/affordable housing they tear down. She said this additional burden on developers could be facilitated by the new position mentioned by Councilmember Rogers. She also requested follow-up discussion on inclusionary zoning. Mr. Akerlow said there was an assessment being done on the issue and additional information would be available this fall. Councilmember Adams requested the Administration investigate whether there were any predatory rental practices taking place in the City that were taking advantage of or displacing residents.
Councilmember Garrott said a clear description was needed about differences between the 5000-Doors initiative and the proposed housing plan, including potential updates and level of Council involvement. He said he sensed a willingness on behalf of the Administration to engage the Council early and thought that needed to be held in a work session.
Mr. Akerlow said the Council adopted a Housing Policy in 2012 (included in transmittal). He said the State required each City to submit a Moderate Income Housing Plan (updated every two years for those at 80% or below Area Median Income (AMI). He said the Administration hoped by the end of summer (August-September) to have some kind of framework to bring back for Council discussion.
Council Members expressed interest in meeting one-on-one or in small groups to discuss housing policy issues involved with developing a Citywide housing plan (prior to full Council policy discussions). Councilmember LaMalfa requested the City explore policies around a mix of incomes and less around preserving the status quo.
Ms. Love said this was the time to gather information and the Administration wanted to work collaboratively with the Council and welcomed comments/feedback. Councilmember Penfold said caution needed to be taken during small group meetings not to discuss policy issues that needed to be addressed by the full Council (to be identified by Administration).
Discussion was held on incorporating other opportunities in the City’s housing efforts such as education, arts, economic development, etc. Councilmember Penfold asked the Administration to identify those links during follow-up discussions. Ms. Love said Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) held discussions about how to focus on neighborhood development beyond housing as they moved forward with the consolidated plan and other City plans. She said how the City approached neighborhood development was critical.
Councilmember Mendenhall said discussions about CIP and master plans needed to be held and felt they would help identify overlaps between potential City projects.
Councilmember LaMalfa said the word “opportunity” was being used in two different ways (opportunity of living in the neighborhood, having access to business schools, transportation, health care, etc. versus opportunity of Citywide homeownership). He said it would help the Council with policy questions if the Administration could separate/use different words for opportunity of homeownership versus opportunity of life success.
#5. 5:10:32 PM HOUSING TRUST FUND LOAN – TAYLOR GARDENS. The Council will be briefed on a proposal that would grant a Housing Trust Fund Loan totaling $750,000 to the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City. The money would be used for construction of Taylor Gardens, a 112-unit apartment complex for seniors at 1776 South West Temple. View Attachments
Michael Akerlow, Sean Murphy, Todd Reeder, Terry Feveryear and Dave Miner briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included project intended to be built without Housing Trust Fund money, high construction and unforeseen remediation costs causing a need for additional funding, soil contamination/remediation, Housing Authority to use loan to leverage their own money, project nearing completion, opportunity for senior population, high demand/190 applicants on waiting list, why should the City be involved if project could be completed without assistance, loan money for specific projects, infill costs, $1.1 million developer fees, disposition funds, flexibility for market mixed-income housing, and tax credit application.
Councilmember Rogers requested information about the $1.1 million proposed for developer fees. Councilmember LaMalfa said he thought there was a policy question about just lending money for specific projects. Ms. Feveryear said with their current funding, the Housing Authority could apply for a tax credit application this year in order to start a third affordable housing construction project. She said without the loan, they would have to wait longer before venturing into a new project.
Councilmember Garrott said Council was scheduled to vote on the issue in two weeks and asked Council Members to let staff know if there were additional concerns/questions.
#6. 5:31:08 PM ZONING AND MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS: 2855 South Highland Drive. View Attachments The Council was briefed on a proposal that would amend the Sugar House future land use map and rezone the property located at 2855 South Highland Drive. The property was currently “split-zoned” with the majority of the property (1.06 acres) zoned CB-Community Business, and the remainder (0.35 acres) zoned R-1/7,000-Single Family Residential. The applicant was requesting that the City rezone the R-1/7,000 portion of the property to CB. The property was currently occupied by a vacant commercial building and parking lot. Although the applicant had requested that the property be rezoned to the CB zone, consideration could be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petitioner – Wayne Reaves, Petition Nos. PLNCPM2014-00769 and PLNPCM2014-00770.
This type of project requires a Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment.
•Zoning Map Amendment- The petitioner is requesting to amend the zoning map designation of the R-1/7,000 portion of the property to CB. The intent of the proposed rezone is to more fully utilize the entire property for future development.
•Master Plan Amendment- The associated future land use map in the Sugar House Master Plan currently designates the majority of the property for “Low-Intensity Mixed Use;” however, the area proposed for rezone to CB is designated for "Parks & Open Space." The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map so that the entirety of the property is designated as “Low-Intensity Mixed Use.”
Daniel Echeverria, Nick Norris, and Nick Tarbet briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included neighborhood effort to create park, no intention for two parks, lower intensity zone, realize mixed-use development target, neighborhood compatibility, natural buffering, seven-foot landscape buffer with any new development, install new street trees, parking requirements, access issues, 10-foot side-yard setback, and neighborhood support.
Councilmember Garrott said it appeared there was Council support for the proposal.
#7. 5:39:48 PM BUDGET ITEMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015-16. The Council received 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. Airport Budget. View Attachments
Maureen Riley, Ryan Tesch, and Russell Weeks briefed the Council with a PowerPoint presentation/attachments. Comments included Uber and Lyft issues, work with UTA to extend service hours, net zero airport, explore solar options, ground transportation system, increase in transportation complaints (customers required to negotiate taxi fares), art projects, and promoting mass transit.
Council Members expressed interest in having the Airport explore ways to encourage patrons to use mass transit. They suggested utilizing the budget process and/or dedicating parking revenue and working with UTA to promote advertising. Ms. Riley said they would explore options. Councilmember LaMalfa asked the Airport to let the Council know if further budget allocations were needed. Councilmember Penfold asked the Airport to continue working towards achieving net-zero energy usage.
Discussion was held on transportation issues relating to taxi services/providers. Ms. Riley said complaints were increasing because new ground transportation rules eliminated taxi meters so customers were required to negotiate fares. She said customers were uncomfortable with that and wanted the Council to address concerns. Councilmember Adams suggested having a flat rate for everyone. Mr. Weeks said ground transportation companies could be surveyed to determine average fares to places like downtown or the University.
Councilmember Garrott asked if Council Members wanted to address ground transportation issues tonight. A majority of the Council said no but supported having a discussion sometime during 2015. Councilmember Garrott said he wanted to make this a priority and would schedule a briefing as soon as possible after the budget was adopted. A majority of the Council was in support.
Councilmember Garrott said he wanted to reconsider a prior straw poll regarding a six-month waiting period to evaluate the impact of new ground transportation rules. Straw Poll: Support to address transportation issues as soon as possible after budget adoption. All Council Members present were in favor, except Councilmember LaMalfa, who was opposed.
#8. 5:29:13 PM SPECIAL LIGHTING DISTRICT L03 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE. The Council held 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 involved some significant increases for property owners. Council Members received updated information and discussed 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.
#9. 6:17:18 PM PIONEER PARK DESIGN CHARRETTE. The Council was briefed on the outcomes of a four-day public design charrette held in February to identify design options for capital improvements at Pioneer Park. View Attachments
Søren Simonsen and Nancy Monteith briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included multi-layered activities/programming, transform park, neighborhood/urban interface, create central open green space, operations/maintenance issues, stakeholder focus groups, safety/security issues, funding issues/grants, capital improvements, public/private partnerships, utilize Open City Hall, implementation strategies, reflect public feedback, concern about restroom construction costs, farmers market/food trucks, design assistance program, visioning processes, regional/neighborhood park, green space preservation, revenue generator, finding a balance, program ongoing small events between large events, political strategy to counteract status quo, open/flexible space, and tree issues/minimize impact.
The Council requested information on the number of trees that would be removed and/or transplanted to accommodate anticipated changes.
Ms. Monteith said next steps included posting information on Open City Hall, reconnecting focus groups, utilizing feedback to prepare implementation/funding plans, and reporting back to the Council. Mr. Simonsen said the proposal would provide a lot of opportunities/options for public engagement.
Councilmember Adams asked that street orientations be specifically identified when information was put on Open City Hall. Councilmember Garrott invited Council Members to provide additional comments/feedback off-line.
#10. 6:49:36 PM INTERVIEW: PUBLIC UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT. The Council interviewed Sydney Fonnesbeck prior to consideration of her appointment to the Public Utilities Advisory Committee.
Councilmember Garrott said Ms. Fonnesbeck’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration.
#11. 6:54:37 PM INTERVIEW: BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE BOARD APPOINTMENT. The Council interviewed Ken Yonemura prior to consideration of his appointment to the Bicycle Advisory Committee.
Councilmember Garrott said Mr. Yonemura’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration.
#12. 8:08:22 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.
#13. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
No discussion was held.
#14. 6:59:09 PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE §52-4-205(1)(d) STRATEGY SESSION 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. (CLOSED SESSION HELD IN ROOM 326)
Councilmember Penfold moved and Councilmember Mendenhall seconded to enter into Closed Session for a strategy session to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, Utah Code §52-4-205(1)(d), Utah Open and Public Meetings Law. A roll call vote was taken. Council Members Mendenhall, Penfold, LaMalfa, Adams, and Garrott voted aye. Councilmember Luke was absent and Councilmember Rogers recused himself. See File M 15-2 for Sworn Statement.
In Attendance: Council Members LaMalfa, Garrott, Mendenhall, Adams, and Penfold.
Recused: Councilmember Rogers.
Absent: Councilmember Luke.
Others in Attendance: Margaret Plane, Jennifer Bruno, Gina Chamness, Lynn Pace, Lehua Weaver, Dan Weist, Catherine Brabson, and Cindi Mansell.
The Closed Session adjourned at 7:24 p.m.
The meeting adjourned at 7:24 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 5, 2015.
clm