The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, September 10, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. at the Public Safety Building Community Room, 475 South 300 East, Salt Lake City.
In Attendance: Council Members Kyle LaMalfa, Luke Garrott, Jill Remington Love, Charlie Luke, Stan Penfold, and Søren Simonsen.
Absent: Councilmember Carlton Christensen
Staff In Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive Director; Neil Lindberg, Council Legal Director; Lehua Weaver, Council Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Nick Tarbet, Council Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Brian Fullmer, Council Constituent Liaison; Jan Aramaki, Council Constituent Liaison/Research/Policy Analyst; Amber McClellan, Council Constituent Liaison; Dan Wiest, Council Communications Coordinator; Priscilla Tuuao, Council Staff Assistant; Jessica Gonsalez, Council Intern; Tracy Fletcher, Council Staff Assistant; Becky Dangerfield, Council Staff Assistant; ObReaee Israelsson, Council Staff Assistant; Molly Farmer, Council Communications Assistant; David Everitt, Mayor’s Chief of Staff; Eric Shaw, Community & Economic Development Director; Mary DeLaMare-Schaefer, Deputy Community & Economic Development Director; Wilford Sommerkorn, Planning Director; DJ Baxter, Redevelopment Director; Robyn Hutcheson, Transportation Director; Julianne Sabula, Streetcar Program Manager; and Cindi Mansell, City Recorder.
Others: Matt Sibul, Utah Transit Authority (UTA); and
Christopher Smart, Salt Lake Tribune.
Councilmember LaMalfa conducted the meeting.
9:01:05 AM The meeting was called to order.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. TRANSPORTATION.
Councilmember LaMalfa encouraged Council feedback on the role of transit in Salt Lake City (SLC) and the scope of work for the City’s Transit Master Plan.
9:03:52 AM Robyn Hutcheson, Julianne Sabula, and Matt Sibul briefed the Council from a PowerPoint presentation.
Ms. Hutcheson explained Staff was working on the Transit Master Plan in effort to provide a draft report for Council consideration. She provided an overview of transportation in Salt Lake City and transit fundamentals and goals. She referenced “Wasatch Choice for 2040” and said Salt Lake City was the only Regional Metropolitan Center. She said the plan was prepared a couple of years ago to identify where/how the city should grow. She said the goal was not just about lessening congestion, but increasing quality of life. She said Salt Lake City was the destination for regional transit lines and determination needed to be made about how to circulate people.
Ms. Hutcheson outlined the following process: Master plan visioning and policy development; topic area plans/specific studies; conceptual and final design; bid process and construction; operations and maintenance. She outlined examples including respective department responsibilities. She referenced the Transportation and Mobility Philosophy Statement and the goal for Salt Lake City residents to have choices of transportation modes which are safe, reliable, affordable, and sustainable. She further referenced the Mayor’s Livability Goal and Policy.
Ms. Hutcheson addressed the Transportation Master Plan as well as other plans recently completed such as Downtown in Motion and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. She provided data/information on drivers, road congestion, and distribution of trips by mode. She then reviewed the various modes of transportation, design, and diversity; including factors that drive decisions such as population, jobs, etc. She said when elected leaders made decisions about transit they faced a mix of competing interests. She said there were no simple answers and it was difficult to determine what was needed and the process began with identifying goals.
Matt Sibul addressed the Council regarding the goal of the UTA Next Tier/Network Study to assess the state of the transportation system, focus on improving service, frequency initiatives, ridership increase, and new target capital investments. He said the expectation was for the City to have the ability to utilize this data when compiling the City’s Transportation Master Plan. He said UTA was trying to get better at community engagement and were soliciting feedback from Community Councils and neighborhood groups about how to design current services.
Mr. Sibul discussed potential Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) and stated it was important to look to the future and expand capacity to offer more downtown transit. He said UTA worked with the City to obtain federal funding to put towards the timing of downtown TRAX to the University; these funds needed to be leveraged with other local funds and UTA was working with partners to see if they could make it happen.
Councilmember LaMalfa expressed concern that the west half of the City had not been addressed; he said there were relatively few streetcar routes on the west side historically and again in the network study. He inquired what UTA had in mind in terms of focusing on work force transportation instead of traditional. Ms. Hutcheson said UTA had addressed the entire region and the City would include consideration at the neighborhood level. She said the Network Study was a much larger picture and would not have the same granular focus as the Transit Master Plan. She said such was the reasoning for Salt Lake City to create its own Transit Master Plan, with UTA participation. Mr. Sibul added the illustrations are purely a start based on analytical data.
The Council discussed transit data and routes, with Councilmember Simonsen stating routes appeared to either connect to the downtown or university. He said the highest employment center was in Highland or the industrial zone of the City between Districts 1 and 2, and needed to be considered within the regional framework. Inquiry was raised as to how the City parcels out density and determines neighborhoods, and whether that was something the Council would like to have a role in. Mr. Sommerkorn said the Transit Master Plan would address density and placement with emphasis on land use analysis and would include work being done by planning and specifically, Plan Salt Lake. He said the Transit Plan would not come up with original information and data about land use but would include efforts relative to key corridor support from Planning, Economic Development, and several related divisions.
Julianne Sabula addressed the Transit Plan Scope of Work; she inquired what would drive this plan and what the Council would like to see accomplished for the City.
Councilmember comments included:
•Providing the ability for anybody in Salt Lake to be able to get anywhere within the City with one transfer (convenience of service) as there was a network of streets that made that possible in most areas of the City;
•Consider cost of service/scalability of cost, paying for service use or giving everyone in the City access to discounted transit pass of some sort;
•Ideally anyone in the City had access to two transit routes within ¼ mile of their home or business;
•Consider hours of operation in core areas and design transit around shifts or the industries that work late at night;
•City-focused service;
•Consistency of service with a targeted 10-minute maximum interval service wait;
•Stability of routes combined with density planning;
•Documentation of reasons for narrowing to certain corridors;
•Consider pursuit of Salt Lake City’s own circulator or bus service or contracting out service (Request For Proposal/RFP) but allow the City to control the route, planning, hours of operation, etc.; and
•Finances that are under the City’s control and tie to specific services, operations, or routes.
Discussion followed regarding the difficulty associated with providing access to multiple transit routes because there are services in certain parts of the City that do not have adequate ridership. Councilmember Luke said if the Council was truly going to create a viable transit infrastructure, the focus needed to be on all neighborhoods and all residents. He said in some areas no routes were available or if there was a route, it required up to three transfers. He said transit needed to have the ability to cover the entire City. Concern was expressed regarding the difficulty in relying on UTA when they focus on regional service and do not have adequate operational funds to keep up or increase service levels at the desired level the City wanted to provide to its stakeholders.
Ms. Sabula reviewed the proposed Scope of Work tasks, including data collection, research, systems analysis, and utilization of work done in current plans which documented existing conditions, identified gaps, and determined needs. She said the idea was to look at what the City had already done and have the ability to spend money on new things. She said staff intended to get creative with public engagement in determining needs and what already existed that was not meeting the needs. She said the goal was to piece together corridors, modes, and other identified needs to create a plan; and this was intended to include governance and finance providing for how to pay for additional service as well as the optimum structure.
The Council discussed ridership amenities, convenience, and comfort. Councilmember Simonsen suggested sidewalks for people to get to buses to avoid landscaping or snow. He discussed the legislative intent within the budget advertising a program for shelter, trash cans, etc. for bus stop locations; he said the focus was still on passengers and amenities but staff should not have to wait on the plan to implement items that had been Council intents for some time. Ms. Sabula said there were a number of ongoing amenities and other efforts and they should continue to move forward. She asked the Council to conceptually think about how to generate additional funds for more amenities.
Discussion followed as to how to integrate the current planning process into this new planning process; or how to offer other opportunities to involve the public in a broader scale. Ms. Hutcheson said staff had a great deal of work to do among divisions to ensure incorporation of all elements. She explained a draft was currently circulating internally and Planning had compiled a large number of transportation comments that would be beneficial in helping form questions that could be asked to get deeper into the process. She said this provided a base starting line in terms of public involvement and offered clarification this was a “study” and not a “plan”.
Inquiry was raised as to whether staff would continue to apply for grants or if projects were on hold until this process had been completed and priorities established from the Transit Plan. Ms. Sabula said existing projects had been studied and were not grant ready. She said once staff could identify a potentially successful project, they could then consider the alternative analysis phase while performing a hybrid study looking at environmental, social, connection, impacts, etc.
Councilmember Love said Vancouver asked its residents to prioritize between roads and other modes of transportation. She said it would be interesting to see where the public would want capital dollars spent. She said she hoped the Transit Plan would be designed to adhere to resident priorities.
Ms. Hutcheson said staff would refine the scope based on the comments and ideas to be included into the working draft. She said staff would then submit it as a transmittal for Council review and approval; she hoped this would occur within the next month or so.
#2. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ISSUES.
10:21:56 AM Councilmember LaMalfa encouraged Council feedback regarding public engagement, the Public Engagement Coordinator position, and what that should include.
10:23:56 AM Lehua Weaver briefed the Council from a PowerPoint presentation. She indicated that Staff was looking for clear policy direction as to what successful public engagement means in effort to guide the City’s engagement efforts and enable Staff to develop policy statements as well as a resolution to outline expectations.
Ms. Weaver identified five main themes relative to process, timeline, defining stakeholders, reaching new people, exploring new tools, and developing a system that worked for both the Administration and the Council. She said both have expert staff in the field and the overall goal was to be able to perform this function well on a citywide level. She further addressed types of engagement and whether there were times when a certain type would be more appropriate. She referenced the Administration’s “Salt Lake City Public Engagement Guide” from April 2012 for use by all City Departments, Divisions, and Employees as they engaged the public in City decisions. Ms. Weaver discussed the concept of success and what that involved, as well as the need to outline expectations to assist in developing policy statements.
Discussion followed regarding the new Public Engagement Coordinator position within the Community & Economic Development Department. Councilmember LaMalfa said the Council funded the position for half of the FY13-14 year and wanted to conduct further discussion on the position scope at this retreat prior to hiring.
The Council discussed the concept of “success”, what an engaged city would look like, how one could tell the difference between Salt Lake and other cities, and what would be evident or not seen in another location. Comments included:
•Increasing the number of followers to the City’s e-mail, Facebook, or Twitter accounts. Concern was expressed that social media tools such as Twitter are one-way; citizens are unaware how to sign up, follow, or comment.
•Refining what and how information was delivered so that citizens would be anxious to see these posts.
•Signing up residents on social media to receive updates in the case of emergency communication.
•Creating a level of patriotism and loyalty by offering successful long term engagement for those that live and do business in the City.
•Various measurements for success.
Ms. Weaver outlined a suggested public engagement spectrum consisting of inform; solicit/input/consult; involve; and quality public collaboration. The Council discussed the difference between this and the joint decision-making spectrum included in the Public Engagement Guide prepared by Administration. Further discussion followed regarding the concept of “involve” and how to define such; would it be more consistent involvement along the way or a continued conversation versus one-time decision, etc. The Council felt the joint decision-making step was more accurate than quality public collaboration.
Councilmember Garrott said planners engage the public early on, the City Council provides for input at the very end of the process, and does it make a difference at that point. He said real engagement had to come at the beginning in order for the public not to feel disenfranchised after speaking at public hearings that traditionally come at the end of the legislative process. He said determination needed to be made as to whether public value was just to have a voice and the value of citizens speaking their mind, or whether value was having efficacy in the decision-making process or being able to craft legislation.
Councilmember Simonsen said the existing Salt Lake City Public Engagement Guide was a great outline to involve the community. He said he felt the City Council should be provided the ability to participate in any point of a process that ended in a Council decision.
Councilmember LaMalfa provided recent examples of less than optimal public engagement such as the Sugarhouse Streetcar alignment and the property tax increase; he inquired if the Council could articulate better ways or vehicles for getting proposals like these out to the public for input. He inquired if input should be solicited for only planning or other City issues such as culturally relevant, etc.
Councilmember Luke said public engagement had improved since Sugarhouse and the thinking outside the box involved with that approach (mailers, sandwich boards). He said the upcoming Council meeting at the Sugarhouse Plaza was a great example of changing things up in terms of approaching the public. He said Council Members were criticized with having made up their minds even before issues had been fully discussed; there was the need to alleviate the mistrust of constituents by utilizing an earlier and consistent approach. He said the reality of public engagement was the public still had the choice whether or not to get involved. He said to be demonstrative the Council wanted to hear from the people, the Council’s role was to determine how to do things better, how to get the word out sooner, and to conduct Council meetings in various locations for large issues.
Councilmember Penfold said he preferred a circular engagement model versus step-to-step. He said the model had the components but assumed a termination, which encourages behavior of not thinking about issues evolving over time or potential future modification. He discussed the challenge of the City Council in not having unlimited resources, people not engaging at the same level on all topics, and the difficulty in trying to figure out in advance where people would have interest. He suggested a top public component or trigger early in the process and then allowing modification from there. He said another issue was not just offering one access point, but figuring out how all of these engagement opportunities worked together. He said people become passionate about various issues and he was not sure they were being provided the right opportunity to have necessary conversations in a more comprehensive way (rather than on a complaint-based process).
Councilmember Love said she liked the Mayor’s Public Engagement Guide; she suggested perhaps not a resolution but just a policy that directed Staff. She said the role of the Public Engagement Coordinator could be to work on outgoing public engagement, create a place to comment and educate the public, and perhaps bring together a communications team when there was an issue and develop a strategy. She said it would also be difficult to put something together that fits every issue.
Councilmember LaMalfa discussed the purpose of the original Community Council groups as being a tool in various planning areas to provide information or social components relative to area issues. He inquired if the Public Engagement Guide points in the direction to be creative and allow these groups to continue. Debate followed as to whether the process should continue after an issue had been addressed.
Discussion followed regarding citizens having the ability to bring issues forward or engaging them with their own ideas regarding legislation. Concern was expressed that the document does not contain anything to make the public feel more engaged or enable citizens any different than what was being done now. Several Council Members felt the document to be a good starting point and that the tools and technology would change over time. The suggestion was offered to add another step of portals to the public to initiate petitions; something that was flexible and individualized, and where constituents know where to go.
Councilmember Luke said the Planning Commission focused on communication and creating opportunities for the public to engage the City Council. He said any discussion on altering the existing function and form of government would require a much broader discussion point. He said he felt the current process was working well in terms of the City Council listening to the constituents; the key was how to listen and represent better rather than focusing on a way for residents to completely bypass existing representation. He said the focus today was providing the public a voice and not enabling them to move away from policy.
Councilmember LaMalfa summarized discussion regarding the focus of the Public Engagement Coordinator:
•Better connection with people who are impacted by a decision through solicited input;
•Citizens are empowered and ready to bring forward complaints; ensure they are also empowered to bring forth initiatives or positive change in their community;
•Consider the need for citizens to know how to bring new ideas forward to the City in an unsolicited way;
•Educate; adapt; be flexible;
•Offer ongoing input through community councils, boards and commissions, and groups that had been created from time to time to address specific issues; and
•Provide a notion of civic-readiness.
The Council took a short break for lunch.
11:22:37 AM Further discussion followed regarding deliverables for the Public Engagement Coordinator position, with Councilmember LaMalfa stating the hiring of that position was contingent upon the City Council adopting a resolution supporting the principles of public engagement. He said people who are involved feel empowered; this type of process builds loyalty. He said he felt the closing cycle of the public engagement process was important and should not just focus on geography, but other interested groups of stakeholders that either become socially involved or because they are passionate about an issue. He said he was excited for this position to help facilitate new social connections.
The Council Members discussed success in seeing the value of engagement in the end process when citizens felt like they had been heard. Discussion followed regarding ways to measure success and the following questions were raised:
•Does the public see value in the end result because of their participation in the process?
•What do participants want?
•How do they feel after?
•What was their experience and did they believe the City Council listened?
•Are they satisfied and whether they felt it made a difference?
The following suggestions were offered:
•Conduct a citizen or Dan Jones Survey of those that participated and inquire if they felt satisfaction or what type of participation they value most;
•Direct the Public Engagement Coordinator to reach outside of how the City currently communicates with the public on City-led initiatives and how to help citizens better engage in the process;
•Consider the earlier the engagement – the better; when beginning to move in a direction it would be time to engage. The question was how to best do that;
•Try to determine how to increase the e-mail, Facebook, and Twitter account numbers;
•Using traditional media to invite/encourage citizens to follow the City’s social media;
•Consider the City does a great job of being transparent but it requires people to know how to look and where to look on-line. Although this was not difficult, it could be time consuming;
•There are always going to be those who complain about a decision after the fact and that was to be expected. Public engagement requires the public to be engaged and the City can only do so much;
•Decrease barriers and make it as easy as possible for the public to be involved; and
•Consistency, follow thru, doing what they say they will; building trust.
Councilmember Simonsen discussed a number of recent studies focused on whether or not public hearings are valuable at all in the decision-making process; he said he was interested in the outcomes and findings. He suggested outreach through polling (similar to those in public education) by randomly asking people if they were satisfied and if they felt empowered to be engaged. He said he wanted to have an increased communications budget and did not feel the Community Engagement Coordinator position alone would meet the City Council needs or create a culture of engagement.
Councilmember LaMalfa said Staff had notes and direction to move forward to return with ideas in a resolution form for Council consideration.
The meeting adjourned at 12:46 p.m.
This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as additional discussion may have been held; please refer to the audio or video for the entire content.
This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Retreat meeting held September 10, 2013.