The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, October 13, 2015, at 4:22 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street.
In Attendance: Council Members Luke Garrott, James Rogers, Erin Mendenhall, Charlie Luke, Kyle LaMalfa, Stan Penfold, and Lisa Adams.
Staff in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; David Everitt, Mayor’s Chief of Staff; Margaret Plane, City Attorney; Jill Remington Love, Community and Economic Development Director; Sean Murphy, Council Public Policy Analyst; Jan Aramaki, Council Public Policy Analyst; Allison Rowland, Council Public Policy Analyst; Lisa Shaffer, Administrative Services Division Director; Curtis Preece, City Courts Administration; Sylvia Richards, Council Public Policy Analyst; Jaysen Oldroyd, Senior City Attorney; Michael Akerlow, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Nick Tarbet, Council Public Policy Analyst; Michael Maloy, Senior Planner; Michaela Oktay, Planning Manager; Nora Shepard, Planning Director; John Vuyk, City Budget Manager; Brian Dale, Fire Chief; Robin Hutcheson, Transportation Director; Tim Doubt, Deputy Police Chief; Shellie Dietrich, Police Administration Accountant; and Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder.
Guests in Attendance: Mike Reberg, Salt Lake County Animal Control Services Director and Fred Philpot, Lewis Young Robertson and Burningham, Inc.
Councilmember Garrott presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 4:22 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. 4:22:15 PM OPTIONS FOR HOW TO MEET ITS DOG OFF-LEASH POLICY GOAL, WHICH WOULD CREATE NEW OFF-LEASH AREAS WHILE MINIMIZING POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS. Council Members will discuss the current process and guidelines for designating dog off-leash areas, as well as several additional items from previous briefings. View Attachments
Jan Aramaki, Allison Rowland, Rick Graham, Lisa Shaffer, and Mike Reberg briefed the Council with attachments. Ms. Rowland provided background information about the proposal including potential goals. Discussion included expanding off-leash opportunities, minimize impacts on other users, potential for pilot projects in all seven districts, enforcement issues/utilize community groups, expand role of existing and new community groups/partnerships (include education, maintenance, enforcement, facilities development, fundraising, etc.), establish goals/objectives/collaborative process for off-leash areas, potential to deputize community groups to issue citations, utilize Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails Board (PNUT), Council priority (take active roll to ensure progress was made), provide opportunities for public involvement (transparency), constraints of Resolution 52 of 2004 (legal advice needed), solicit ideas for new dog parks, seven new pilot programs, utilize standardized designation process, public engagement/outreach, keeping up with changing demand, one current application, establish a one-year trial period, legalize defacto parks, pilot concept to explore limited hours at existing parks, allocate funding to provide research/evaluation/feedback, how to define successful projects, components for time-restricted areas, ability for Council to initiate an application, change bad behavior through education, explore options for regional participation, develop evaluation criteria, and pattern public engagement after Planning and Landmark Commissions.
Further discussion was held on establishing designation criteria that could be used in some type of public process to establish new off-leash parks (incorporate PNUT Board in the process), allow Council initiated applications, establish seven pilot projects (one per district on a rotating basis with limited hours), allow other non-pilot projects to move forward (Fairmont Park, Rosewood Park, Rotary Glen Park), process current Shoreline Trail application, and develop process for pilot projects. Councilmember Luke said the PNUT Board needed to be involved at the beginning of the designation process.
Straw Poll: Support for seven pilot projects. All Council Members were in support except Councilmember Garrott who was opposed. Councilmember Mendenhall was absent for the straw poll.
Further discussion was held on the Administration’s ability to carry out the Council’s request for seven pilot projects in addition to Fairmont Park, Rosewood Park, Rotary Glen Park and Shoreline Trail. Mr. Graham said this would require a lot of meetings/time for staff to work with the community to implement/evaluate the projects. He said projects could not be done all at once (spread out over time). He said additional projects would be in addition to the seven existing off-leash areas and additional resources/funding would be required to manage the new projects. Mr. Graham said Council needed to be open to having PNUT come back to them with some type of organizational structure of how that would work. He said he also needed to get legal advice about what his department was obligated to follow under the resolution and what flexibility was available.
Straw Poll: Support to move forward with Fairmont Park, Rosewood Park, Rotary Glen Park as traditional off-leash areas, look at an expanded Shoreline Trail as a trial (include evaluation criteria), and look at revolving hours on a rotating basis (spread implementation out over time). All Council Members were in favor except Councilmember Mendenhall who was absent for the straw poll. Mr. Graham requested a better definition regarding the Council expectation for enhancing off-leash services on the expanded Shoreline Trail.
Straw Poll: Support to request costs from the Administration to implement the three traditional projects (Fairmont Park, Rosewood Park, Rotary Glen Park) in the current fiscal year and identify additional resources needed for the evaluation component of the other projects (include in an upcoming budget amendment this year). All Council Members were in favor except Councilmember Mendenhall who was absent for the straw poll.
Mr. Graham expressed concern about taking responsibility to pick sites for off-leash time rotation and enforcement issues. Discussion was held on providing enforcement for additional off-leash areas. Mr. Graham said the City did not have the capacity to provide enforcement (based on Council’s definition of enforcement).
Note: Councilmember Mendenhall arrived at 5:31 p.m.
Councilmember Penfold said he wanted the Administration to come back to the Council with a recommendation for seven pilot areas including a rotation schedule for further Council input (include recommendation for specific hours at specific parks). He said he wanted to provide traditional enforcement at Fairmont, Rosewood, and Rotary Glen Parks but preferred to utilize an educational approach for new trial areas rather than hard enforcement. He requested information about what resources would be needed to provide an education component. He said he also wanted to explore options for providing regional off-leash opportunities.
Councilmember Garrott asked about the County’s ability to add enforcement capacity if Council allocated funding in a budget amendment. Mr. Reberg said an overtime line-item could be added to provide initial coverage with existing staff. He said depending on long-term needs additional staff could be hired. He said the County could also provide enforcement education, analysis and feedback on trial areas. He said partnerships with community groups were a critical component.
Further discussion was held on addressing issues relating to Resolution 52. Councilmember Garrott said the issue would have to be addressed at a future meeting. Councilmember Penfold suggested utilizing data gathered during the pilot/trial projects to help inform a future decision on the resolution. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Staff would come back to the Council with a summary for further review/decision.
Councilmember Garrott asked if the City had applied for ZAP funding with the County. Mr. Graham said applications needed to be submitted by December 1, 2015. Councilmember Garrott asked if Council Members were in support of directing the Administration to apply with the County for expanding off-leash opportunities in the new ZAP funding cycle. All Council Members were in favor.
#2. 5:48:46 5:48:41 PM A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE RECERTIFICATION OF THE JUSTICE COURT OF SALT LAKE CITY. JUSTICE COURTS MUST BE RECERTIFIED AT THE END OF EACH FOUR-TERM BY THE UTAH JUDICIAL COUNCIL. View Attachments
Curtis Preece, Jaysen Oldroyd, and Sylvia Richards briefed the Council with attachments. Mr. Preece reviewed the recertification process. Mr. Oldroyd said the City needed to submit appropriate documents to the “Administrative Office of the Courts” by October 30, 2015. Councilmember Garrott said he felt there was Council support to move forward with the proposal.
#3. 6:02:52 6:02:50 PM ON IMPACT FEES IN GENERAL, IN PREPARATION FOR A FORTHCOMING ADMINISTRATIVE PROPOSAL. The Council will continue to discuss this topic in the coming months. Impact fees are charged to developers based on the increased need for public services that results from population growth. View Attachments
Sean Murphy, Mike Akerlow, Jill Love, and Fred Philpot briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included how impact fees were collected/used, economic impacts, funding options, strategic policy decisions, coordinate/incorporate impact fees with Capital Improvement Program (CIP), eligibility guidelines/restrictions/matching requirements, minimize match requirements with specific/targeted improvements in areas of dramatic growth, develop impact fee plan, new growth should pay for itself (include all required infrastructure), potential to shorten list of projects in order to increase match amounts (focus solely on new growth, not repair/replacement), local versus national standards relating to service levels, unrealistic CIP projections, rising CIP maintenance issues, develop/evaluate fair impact fees, indentify target services levels, City flexibility in defining service levels (baseline needed for future planning), consistently review/update plan, geographic growth flexibility, maintain service levels relative to demand, avoid adding or widening roads, use number of road trips as a unit of analysis, pedestrian safety service levels, calculations relating to existing service levels, and philosophy statements referenced in master plans.
Councilmember Penfold said with any significant CIP funding increase the Council needed to simultaneously examine/adjust impact fee structure. Councilmember LaMalfa said the Council needed to request that the consultant report to the Council the City’s current service levels and project growth for each impact fee eligible asset class. Mr. Philpot said the Impact Fee Act required the City to identify existing and proposed service levels.
Councilmember Penfold said the consultant could help by doing research on traffic issues (potential to divert growth to other transportation modes utilizing impact fees and determine available flexibility). Mr. Philpot said they would look at that concept. Councilmember LaMalfa said he felt Council needed to have the Administration/CIP Team provide options on ways to boost impact fee match amounts.
Councilmember LaMalfa requested at the next impact fee briefing the Council review the consultant’s findings/data regarding current services levels and projected growth for all applicable asset classes (receive presentation from consultant).
Note: discussion resumed after dinner break. 7:49:56 PM
Straw Poll: New growth should pay for new infrastructure needs that are created by that new growth. All Council Members were in favor except Council Members Adams and Councilmember Rogers who were opposed.
After discussion was held on remaining policy statements (Page 154), Councilmember Garrott said he sensed Council Members were not comfortable with the general policy direction and introduced the next agenda item.
#4. 8:06:27 8:06:17 PM A PROPOSAL THAT WOULD SUSPEND THE COLLECTION OF PARK, FIRE, ROADWAY, FACILITIES AND POLICE IMPACT FEES FOR 12 MONTHS WHILE THE ADMINISTRATION WORKS WITH A CONSULTANT TO DEVELOP A NEW IMPACT FEES FACILITIES PLAN. During that time, fees already collected can be spent on eligible projects. Impact fees are charged to developers based on the increased need for public services that results from population growth. View Attachments
Sean Murphy, Jill Love, Katherine Lewis, and Mike Akerlow briefed the Council with attachments. Ms. Love said the Administration was requesting a suspension of impact fees while they continued to work on developing a more effective impact fee process. She said they would check back with the Council at various points in the process. Discussion included complicated issues, develop a well-defined plan for collecting and spending impact fees, new growth/development would continue during moratorium, potential legal challenges, fair/equitable process, public outreach/notification, sufficient impact fee reserve, continued collection of water/sewer fees, un-used fees returned to current property owners after six years, crime lab facility budget (potential match), too much money in reserves to spend, and potential to roll impact fees collected under the old plan into the new plan.
Straw Poll: Support to suspend impact fees for 12 months. All Council Members were in favor except Council Members Mendenhall, Garrott, and LaMalfa.
Discussion was held on when the ordinance would go into effect. Ms. Gust-Jenson said ordinances normally become effective upon publication.
#5. 8:31:27 8:31:21 PM PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED YALECREST – HARVARD HEIGHTS LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT. Local Historic Districts are designed to maintain the historic character of a neighborhood by protecting historic features and preventing out-of-character alterations. The proposed boundaries of the Local Historic District include homes on both sides of Harvard Avenue between 1300 East and 1500 East, excluding properties within the Normandie Circle LHD. This report from the Planning Division is one of the first steps in the process for designating a local historic district in Salt Lake City. If the Council finds the report complete, the Planning Division will continue with the local historic designation process which includes community outreach, public hearings before the Historic Landmark and Planning commissions, and an evaluation of property owners’ support. Once those steps have taken place, the proposal will come back to the Council for final consideration. Petitioners, Amy and Cory Reid, Petition No. PLNHLC-2015-00032. View Attachments
Nick Tarbet, Michael Maloy, Michaela Oktay, and Nora Shepard briefed the Council with attachments.
Straw Poll: Support to accept the proposal. All Council Members were in favor except Councilmember Mendenhall, who was absent for the straw poll.
#6. 8:34:28 8:34:25 PM A PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS BEFORE THE COUNCIL THAT WOULD AMEND THE FINAL BUDGET OF SALT LAKE CITY, INCLUDING THE EMPLOYMENT STAFFING DOCUMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. Among many other projects, this budget amendment includes funding for: View Attachments
•design work on fire stations No. 3 and No. 14;
•implementing Enterprise SLC, an effort to improve economic development in the city;
•improving email archiving to improve the efficiency and of public records requests;
•and several other items.
Sylvia Richards, John Vuyk, Jill Love, Sean Murphy, Michael Akerlow, Robin Hutcheson, Tim Doubt, Shellie Dietrich, David Everitt, and Brian Dale briefed the Council with attachments.
Discussion was held on the following Sections/Items:
SECTION A: NEW ITEMS:
•A-1: Diversity Outreach/Explorer Program ($142,936 - General Fund) – One Time. Discussion was held regarding continuing outreach efforts to recruit diverse applicants.
•A-2: Fire Truck Replacement and Temporary Repair ($625,000 and $40,000 - General Fund). No objections.
•A-4: Enterprise SLC ($240,000 – General Fund). Ms. Love said funding would be used to address “Three Point Pledge” associated with the program. Councilmember LaMalfa said he wanted to see the Administration recruit a new partner the City had not previously worked with regarding business recruitment/incentives. Councilmember Garrott said a lot of policy implications were associated with the proposal and felt additional Council discussion was needed.
•A-6: Baseball Park Concession Stands Improvements - Riverside & Poplar Grove Parks ($44,000 - CIP Fund) - One-time. Councilmember Rogers said additional funding was needed to light the baseball field at Riverside Park.
•A-8: Capital Asset Due Diligence ($100,000 - CIP) - One-time. Councilmember Garrott asked why this was not part of the annual budget process. Mr. Akerlow said it could be but immediate funding was needed to perform required property studies.
•A-11: Fire Stations #3 & #14 Design Fees ($913,390 - Impact Fees) - One-time. Mr. Vuyk said the amount needed to be reduced to $750,400.
•A-15: Salt Storage Structure at DeLong - Architectural Services ($23,684 - CIP Fund) - Onetime. No objections.
•A-17: Salt Lake County Park and Trails Bond - Jordan River Bridge Funds ($4,500,000 - CIP Fund) - One-time. No objections.
•A-19: Fire Alarm Upgrades in Multiple City Buildings ($183,000 - General Fund). No objections.
•A-22: Homeless Shelter Area Sidewalk Cleaning ($20,000 & $81,500 - General Fund) - Ongoing & One-time. Mr. Vuyk said another proposal was submitted allowing an outside vendor to provide services ($25,000 this year and $32,000 ongoing). A majority of the Council was in favor of contracting with an outside vendor.
SECTION D: HOUSEKEEPING
•D-1: Grants and Other Special Revenue Carryovers ($11,184,743 - One-time. No objections.
•D-2: TRAN's 2015 - General Fund's Interest Expense - Reduction ($105,833 - General Fund). No objections.
•D-3: Crime Lab Lease Payment ($37,762 - CIP Fund) - One-time. No objections.
•D-4: Recapture Remaining Bond, Class "C" CIP, General Fund and County Completed and Closed Projects (CIP Fund). No objections.
•D-5: Impact Fee Revenue (Impact Fees) - One-time. No objections.
•D-6: Council Constituent Tracking System ($180,483 - General Fund) - One-time. No objections.
•D-7: Excellence in the Community - Gallivan and Redevelopment Agency (RDA) ($200,000 -General Fund) One-time. No objections.
•D-8: Transfer of Approved Budget for Vehicle Purchase (Pay Station Coin Collection)($30,000 - Fleet) - One-time. No objections.
•D-9: Reallocating Recaptured HOME Funds ($3,425 - Misc Grants) - One-time. No objections.
•D-10: Change of Scope: Lindsey Gardens Baseball Field Improvements - (CIP Fund) - Onetime. No objections.
•D-12: Change Foothill Drive Implementation ($75,000 - CIP Fund) - One-time. Ms. Hutcheson explained the proposal. She said appropriate partners had been secured and each would contribute $25,000. She said the City’s contribution had been made. Councilmember Luke said participation was needed from other partners in order to accomplish what needed to be done.
•D-13: Golf Program Director Hiring Status (Budget Neutral - Golf Fund) - Ongoing. No objections.
SECTION G: GRANT AWARDS
•G-1: State of Utah Department of Workforce Services, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), STEMLink Afterschool Program ($165,560 - Misc. Grants) - One-time. No objections.
•G-2: State of Utah Department of Workforce Services, Central City and Northwest Multicultural Teen Safe Passage Programs ($70,000 - Misc. Grants) - One-time. No objections.
•G-3: Utah State Office of Education, Child and Adult Care Food Program - YouthCity After School Programs ($15,000 - Misc. Grants) - One-time. No objections.
•G-4: Salt Lake County, Child Care Development Block Grant - YouthCity After School Program Grant at Central City and Sorenson Unity Center ($41,599 - Misc. Grants) - Onetime. No objections.
•G-5: State of Utah Department of Workforce Services, Child Care Development Discretionary Fund (CCDF), Elementary Age - After School Programs ($262,444 - Misc. Grants) - One-time. No objections.
•G-6: Utah Department of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Management, Hazardous Materials Planning Grant ($2,750 - Misc. Grant) - One-time. No objections.
•G-7: Jordan River Commission, Jordan River Youth Ambassadors Canoe Fleet Project ($2,500 - Misc. Grant) - One-time. No objections.
•G-8: Administrative Office of the Courts, Justice Court Technology Grant, Security and Training Account ($3,500 - Misc. Grants) - One-time. No objections.
•G-9: State of Utah, 2013-Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSP) and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP) ($15,860 - Misc Grants) - One-time. No objections.
•G-10: United States Department of Health and Human Services SAMHSA - Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking ACT (STOP ACT) Grant ($48,258 - Misc. Grants) - One-time. No objections.
•G-11: Workforce Services, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), STEMLink After-school Program ($165,560 - Misc. Grants) - One-time. No objections.
•G-12: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Water Management and Conservation Plan Grant ($22,828 - Misc Grants) - One-time. No objections.
•G-13: Utah State Office for Victims of Crime, 2015 VOCA Victim Assistance Grant ($60,975 - Misc Grants) - One-time. No objections.
•G-14: Federal Asset Forfeiture Funds ($12,955 - Misc Grants) - One-time. No objections.
•G-15: United States Small Business Administration, Startup in a Day Competition, Start Small Model ($50,000 - Misc. Grants) One-time. No objections.
•G-16: State of Utah, CCJJ (Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice), Jurisdictions with Halfway Houses and Parole Violator Centers Grant ($391,667 - Misc. Grants) – Ongoing WITHDRAWN PER REQUEST FROM CITY COUNCIL. Discussion was held about a potential briefing. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Staff would come back to the Council with more information.
•G-17: Federal Asset Forfeiture Funds ($165,337 - Misc Grants) - Ongoing. No objections.
SECTION I: COUNCIL ADDED ITEMS
•I-1: Maintenance of City property and Open Space property (up to $388,350+ Ongoing) a. Parks & Public Lands maintenance: $300,000, b. Weed abatement on City-owned property: $88,350, c. Natural Lands maintenance: $TBD by Council, and d. Sports fields. Ms. Gust-Jenson provided background information about the item. Discussion was held on holding a policy discussion regarding alleys.
•I-2: Urban Forestry Tree Funding ($250,000 - General Fund) Ongoing. No objections.
•I-3: GRAMA Systems ($175,000 - General Fund). No objections.
•I-4: Council Office Reclassifications/structure changes (-0- Council Office Budget). No objections.
•I-5: Vote By Mail General Election Outreach Options ($12,000 - General Fund). No objections.
•I-6: Animal Services Interlocal Agreement - Annual Raccoon Abatement contribution $35,632. No objections.
•I-7: Salt Lake City’s Match Requirement for U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services grant award ($1,085,354 - General Fund). Councilmember Garrott requested background information about the proposal including potential City benefits. Chief Doubt briefed the Council. Ms. Dietrich said when Federal funding ran out in three years the ongoing liability to the City would be approximately $3.3 million. A majority of the Council was in favor.
Further discussion was held on additional Council added items which included a property tax revenue windfall, utilizing $2 million of new revenue to finish the bridge over the railroad tracks at the Jordan River, $1.5 million funding gap in Sego Lilly project, and match requirement ($1 million for Jordan River bridge and $750,000 for Sego Lilly - match from private sector) to complete projects.
Councilmember Garrott said the proposal was for 50% funding from the City and find public/private match for remaining portion. He asked whether there was support for the concept in principal. All Council Members were in favor.
Mr. Vuyk asked if a match was required before funds could be spent. Discussion was held on whether to require a match. The Council asked Ms. Richards to come back to the Council with options before final adoption (one with full funding and one with matching funds (show fund balance for each).
#7. 9:24:19 PM REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 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, including but not limited to:
•Campaign Finance
•Plan Salt Lake
•Scheduling Items
See File M 15-5 for announcements.
#8. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
No discussion was held.
#9. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE FOR ANY ALLOWED PURPOSE.
Item not held.
The Work Session meeting adjourned at 9:28 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 October 13, 2015.
sc