The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, September 8, 2015, at 4:54 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street.
In Attendance: Council Members James Rogers, Luke Garrott, Erin Mendenhall, Lisa Adams, Charlie Luke, Kyle LaMalfa, and Stan Penfold.
Staff in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Jennifer Bruno, Executive Council Deputy Director; David Everitt, Mayor's Chief of Staff; Margaret Plane, City Attorney, Lehua Weaver, Council Senior Public Policy Analyst; Debbie Lyons, Public Service Sustainability Program Director; Lynn Pace, Senior Advisor to Mayor Becker; Sean Murphy, Council Public Policy Analyst; Mike Akerlow, HAND Director; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Jeff Snelling, City Engineer; Robin Hutcheson, Transportation Director; and Cindi Mansell, City Recorder.
Councilmember Garrott presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 4:54 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. 5:17:09 PM SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE REGULATIONS. The Council will be briefed on proposed changes to the City’s solid waste and recycling regulations. The proposed changes include requiring businesses and multi-family complexes to establish recycling programs, and a graduated fine schedule for noncompliance with refuse, recycling and green waste collection laws. View Attachments
Lehua Weaver and Debbie Lyons briefed the Council with attachments. Ms. Lyons explained up to this point, recycling for all businesses and multi-family properties had been optional based on the property or business owner preference. She said the service would now be required for properties that generate more than a certain volume (4-cubic yards) of recyclable waste. Discussion followed regarding the important goal of increasing the amount of waste diverted from the Landfill, options for smaller bins, compliance inspections by Zoning Enforcement, verification of hauler waste versus recycle contract, contamination and handling issues, various ideas to pass costs along or provide for City absorption, and other types of creativity with options to sufficiently divert waste. Ms. Lyons said the Utah Apartment Association had requested exclusion for low-income housing due to limitations in passing those costs along.
Councilmember Rogers expressed concern in mandating others to comply when the City does not and suggested including Salt Lake County in the City's approach to assist in protecting the landfill capacity. The Council noted that response from residents was overwhelmingly supportive. Further discussion followed regarding approach, phase-in time, pilot project, how to measure, tracking ability, outreach, education, consistent City campaign, and potential to involve the Civic Engagement Group to assist Public Services in marketing or education endeavors. Ms. Weaver said Staff could return with additional information on capacity, implementation (possibly tie into the business license process), education, and enforcement prior to scheduling a public hearing.
#2. 5:56:05 PM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. The Council will continue to discuss the Mayor’s recommended budget relating to the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2015-2016. Capital improvements involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures. Generally, projects have a useful life of five or more years and cost $50,000 or more. View Attachments
Sean Murphy, Jeff Snelling, Jennifer Bruno, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rick Graham, and Robin Hutcheson briefed the Council with attachments. Mr. Murphy indicated Staff had listed projects associated with Council Priorities and subsequent ranking and sorting. He referenced two new Council-initiated projects (#72) Redwood Meadows Park and (#73) Indiana Avenue, 9th South & 9th West pedestrian improvements. Discussion followed regarding the Indiana Avenue project being an impact fee-eligible project. Mr. Murphy stated if the fees are not allocated and encumbered, the City begins to lose the fees and repayment would be required. Councilmember LaMalfa discussed the complete streets design proposal and suggested utilizing Class C funds previously allocated for the Indiana Avenue project. Mr. Murphy said there would be a conflict removing Class C funds from this project within the impact fee section. Ms. Gust-Jenson discussed differing funding stream alternatives.
Jeff Snelling discussed the West Side Industrial impact fee collection area and program in anticipation of two phases of necessary roadwork. Councilmember LaMalfa suggested utilizing $500,000 from the Indiana Avenue CIP project for design and engineering of complete streets in the West Side Master Plan, and additional fund balance to make a complete match of $1.2 million.
A 1-5 Straw Poll was conducted and failed in favor of moving forward at this time with these two Council-initiated (#72 & #73) items and not putting them in line with priorities. Councilmember LaMalfa was in favor, Council Members Adams, Luke, Garrott, Mendenhall, and Rogers were opposed. Councilmember Penfold was not present when the poll was taken.
Councilmember LaMalfa addressed the West Side Master Plan projects and suggested consideration of all eight projects together with a revenue bond. He said all projects are highlighted as projects to complete the West Side Master Plan as well as address overlapping Council priority projects. Discussion followed regarding the length of time projects have been on the project list. He suggested those eight items, with the addition of the Indiana Avenue complete streets proposal, would make significant progress on achieving the master plan and putting the west side neighborhood on a trajectory to success. Mr. Murphy stated that total would be approximately $4.5 million but many of the projects span across the City and potentially implement citywide goals.
Councilmember Luke addressed the different CIP approach this year based on priorities and expressed concern there had been a number of projects that had already followed the process with the Board. He said he felt the Council should first vote on projects that had received CIP Board recommendation and get through the priority list first by voting on items which had already received a recommendation. He said they could then see what amount of funding remained for additional projects. Concern was expressed that the Council would then be spending all available funds based solely on the Mayor’s recommendations for the balanced budget.
Councilmember Mendenhall suggested the Council proceed with those projects that had received board recommendations but discuss the amount. Discussion followed regarding the change in approach or consideration of items that had not been recommended by the Board or the Mayor.
The Council reviewed the projects in order, beginning with Folsom trail from 500 West to the Jordan River. Ms. Hutcheson reviewed funding necessary for planning and design towards production of construction documents. Discussion followed regarding the impact fee funds and whether they could apply to design or construction. Ms. Hutcheson stated she would have to check. She explained the project developed throughout the bond discussion after the submittal of the CIP proposals. She said there would still be the connection but with slightly fewer amenities. She clarified design could be completed with a smaller amount and the $100,000 could provide construction documents. The Council addressed a number that would include design for the Folsom Trail and proximity to the bridge from Jordan River to City creek.
A unanimous Straw Poll was conducted in favor of funding the Folsom Trail project at approximately $100,000.
Consideration was given to the impact-fee eligible project for Indiana Avenue/900 South rehabilitation project. Mr. Murphy stated this project had been moved into the impact fee projects.
Consideration was given to project #3, bikeways citywide which also appear in the Urban Trails and pedestrian safety priorities. It was asked if the impact fees would be in addition of the recommended amount, with Mr. Murphy stating he was waiting for clarification.
A 6-1 Straw Poll was conducted in favor of funding $250,000 total for this project, including impact fees. Councilmember Garrott was opposed; Council Members LaMalfa, Adams, Luke, Mendenhall, Rogers, and Penfold were in favor.
Ms. Gust-Jenson clarified that staff had rushed to attempt placement of items in categories based on priorities. She said she could see how this could be done a different way in the future to be more precise and added that there were components that relate to other areas that should be broken down more or include disclaimers because it was not accurate to say that all items within each category are directly related.
A 5-2 Straw Poll was conducted in favor of funding $300,000 for Project #7 - ADA & CPSC related playground safety surface improvements, citywide. Council Members Penfold and Garrott were opposed; Council Members LaMalfa, Adams, Luke, Mendenhall, and Rogers were in favor.
A unanimous Straw Poll was conducted in favor of funding $150,000 for Project #8 2015/16 Bridge Maintenance Program. Mr. Snelling offered clarification these would fund maintenance for non-pedestrian/existing vehicle bridges.
Councilmember Penfold suggested moving $250,000 from Urban Forestry into the next budget amendment with the intent that such be incorporated into the annual Urban Forestry (Parks/Public Services) budget. He discussed the rationale it was almost all entirely maintenance that should be considered in General Fund budgeting rather than Special CIP.
A unanimous Straw Poll was conducted in favor of allocating $250,000 from Urban Forestry CIP (Project #9) into the General Fund in an upcoming budget amendment as recommended.
A 6-1 Straw Poll was conducted in favor of funding Project #73 with $500,000 from CIP. Councilmember Rogers was opposed; Council Members LaMalfa, Penfold, Garrott, Mendenhall, Luke, and Adams were in favor.
7:43:52 PM The Council readdressed the Indiana Avenue 9th/9th pedestrian improvements (#73) approval of $500,000 ($1,200,000 total) and whether it would be CIP, General Fund allocation, General Fund balance, or Class C funds. Councilmember LaMalfa said the total estimate included a complete-street proposal and the intent was to cover design and engineering. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the hope was it would be easy to move the Indiana funds over to put towards this project, but it was recently discovered this would mess with the Impact Fee program and the suggestion was to get the project started with $500,000 toward design and engineering.
Councilmember LaMalfa said he would go back to a bond proposal to complete the full reach of the street and acknowledged there was not a need for full reconstruction but rather from I-215 to I-15 to include intersections. He said completion of this was critical to the success of the West Salt Lake Plan and he would propose $500,000 could be the first bond payment in a 10-year bond to complete those improvements. It was noted that further discussion would take place on this matter.
A unanimous Straw Poll was conducted in favor of allocating $200,000 for Project #18 Sidewalk Rehabilitation/Concrete Saw Cutting & Slab Jacking citywide.
A unanimous Straw Poll was conducted in favor of allocating $150,000 for Project #19 Sidewalk Rehabilitation/Protective Sidewalk Repair citywide.
A 6-1 Straw Poll was conducted in favor of allocating $204,700 for Project #20 Main Street ADA improvements citywide. Council Members Luke, Adams, Mendenhall, LaMalfa, Penfold, Rogers were in favor; Councilmember Garrott was opposed and stated Main Street was accessible and he did not want to see more construction. Mr. Snelling explained existing ADA guidelines were met at the time when light rail was constructed down Main Street. He said some “slopes” do not meet ADA requirements and there had been numerous citizens request the project.
Discussion followed regarding Project #21, Missing Sidewalk Installation Program citywide. Ms. Gust-Jenson discussed the sidewalk replacement program policy and suggested Council Staff work with Administration to clarify the language to be consistent wherein most property owners in the City have invested in sidewalk replacement and this allocation was not changing that practice.
A unanimous Straw Poll was conducted in favor of allocating $50,000 for Project #21 and for Staff to verify consistent sidewalk policy language and possibly bring back wording for Council consideration. Inquiry was raised as to whether the sidewalk 50/50 program existed within the CIP. Council requested this information from Public Services Director Rick Graham.
A unanimous Straw Poll was conducted in favor of allocating $200,000 for Project #23, ADA Accessibility Ramps/Corner Repairs, citywide.
Discussion followed regarding Project #28, six Traffic Signal Upgrades, 900 E/2700 S; 900 W/600 S; 500 E/500 S; 500 E/100 S; 200 E/2100 S; 1200 W/600 N and proposed funding requested for $1,080,000. Inquiry was raised as to priorities, Ms. Hutcheson stated this would be for upgrades.
A unanimous Straw Poll was conducted in favor of allocating $600,000 to provide for 3 traffic signals.
Discussion followed regarding Project #31, HAWK Light for 400 S. and Concord Avenue and 400 S. Concord Avenue Cross Streets. Ms. Hutcheson explained this was a community request and Staff recommendation was not for a HAWK signal due to configuration of conjoining streets. She said the proposed solution was to install a rapid flashing beacon which could be funded now from pedestrian safety funds. This item was subsequently pulled from CIP.
Discussion followed regarding Cemetery priorities items with Councilmember Penfold addressing Project #32 Historic 11th Avenue Sandstone and 405 N. Cobblestone Retaining Wall Repair and Replacement, 11th Avenue from M Street to U Street and 405 N. 980 E. in the SLC Cemetery. He said the recommendation of $325,924 would provide for the critical stabilization that must be done. Mr. Graham said this still would not taken into account some parts of the southern wall south down 11th Avenue; he estimated it would accomplish 70-80% of the immediate need even with the recommended $550,000 allocation.
A 6-1 Straw Poll was conducted in favor of allocating $550,000 towards project #32 for the Cemetery as outlined. Council Members LaMalfa, Penfold, Garrott, Mendenhall, Luke, and Adams were in favor; Councilmember Rogers was opposed.
A unanimous Straw Poll was conducted in favor of allocating $153,750 to complete Project #72 at Redwood Meadows Park.
Mr. Murphy said Project #69, Pedestrian Safety Improvements Citywide had been overlooked.
Discussion followed regarding the Council’s schedule and intent for voting on projects. Mr. Murphy said the Council had completed review of all projects with recommendations, zeroed out some projects, but have not funded projects typically funded such as local street construction, percent for art, contingency, etc. He said Staff would confirm the funding numbers and identify items typically funded for an upcoming Council conversation. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Council would need to adopt the entire CIP Plan via ordinance. Councilmember LaMalfa stated he would like to create a more tangible proposal surrounding the Indiana business nodes and stated he would like to return with a higher-quality proposal for the only item related to the West Side Master Plan.
#3. 6:48:14 PM IMPACT FEE STUDY. The Council will receive a presentation from the City’s Impact Fees consultant about how impact fees work and the City’s options for changing fees going forward. This is an interim report. The Administration has not yet finalized recommendations for changing impact fees. The Council will continue to discuss this topic in the coming months. View Attachments
Discussion followed regarding the need to reschedule this agenda item to provide more time for discussion. Mr. Akerlow said the Impact Fee consultant was present this evening but could return to another meeting. Ms. Bruno added the discussion may be related to a percolating proposal that came out of the Enterprise SLC process wherein Administration would be forwarding a request to place a moratorium on impact fees. She said the consultant presentation would cover where SLC was at in the process to forward a new impact fee schedule. Discussion followed regarding challenges faced in the past associated with specifics of projects and expenditures, changing priorities, inadequate collection of fees, and specific fee options.
The Council expressed concern with the consultant moving forward without Council input. Ms. Bruno stated there was earlier discussion and Staff had provided information to the consultant to the extent that it could be included. Mr. Akerlow added there would be a great deal of work-service methodology, conditions and time to review projects. Ms. Gust-Jenson said although the Council did provide policy input at the time, there was a different proposal on the table. She said there would be several policy questions the Council would need to consider in the near future.
#4. SOLAR PANEL INSTALLATIONS IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS. The Council will be briefed about a proposal that would change the approval process for small solar panel installations on residences in historic districts and at landmark sites. The proposed changes would allow City staff to approve applications for solar panel installations – except when they are proposed to be located on the front facade directly adjacent to the public right-of way. Currently, applications for panels on the front or side facades must be reviewed and approved by the Historic Landmark Commission. Related provisions of Title 21A- Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Petition No. PLNHLC2014-00883) View Attachments
No discussion was held.
#5. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT – LAND EXCHANGES WITH SALT LAKE COUNTY. The Council will be briefed about proposed land exchanges with Salt Lake County. Under the proposal, the City will convey to the County: View Attachments
• Mick Riley Golf Course, 421 East Vine Street;
• Health Department Building, 610 South 200 East;
• Tenth East Senior Center, 237 South 1000 East;
• Liberty Senior Center, 251 East 700 South; and
• Sunday Anderson Senior Center, 868 West 900 South.
Under the proposal, the County will convey to the City:
• the land under Raging Waters, 1205 West 1700 South;
• the first floor of the City & County Building, 451 South State; and
• approximately 230 acres of unimproved real property in Lambs Canyon.
No discussion was held.
#6. DOG OFF-LEASH ISSUES. The Council continues to explore 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
No discussion was held.
#7. 7:44:42 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:
• Plan Salt Lake Next Steps
• Council Legislative Subcommittee
• Ordinance Amendment – East Bench Preserve Hours
• Scheduling Items
See File M 15-5 for Announcements.
#8. 4:55:08 PM REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
Council Members that recently traveled to Denver and met with Boulder/Denver City Officials to learn about their transportation efforts, including complete streets, public transportation, accessible transportation, urban transit oriented development, and more - discussed what they had learned or felt most important.
Comments included:
*Opportunity for service "buy ups" with Utah Transit Authority (UTA) similar to what Boulder had done with their Regional Transportation District (RTD) system resulting in benefits such as expansion of hours, frequency, routes, or even making certain routes free that serve a regional basis.
*Non-profit that provides transportation for a huge variety of people that are elderly or disabled.
*Meeting with developers and transportation players can result in benefits for the older population.
*Zero-based parking in combination with adjacent parking structure to lease out in conjunction.
*Unbundling being a critical part of the scenario.
*Ability to build out local networks by generating original revenue from the Municipal Parking Authority and changing requirements so that developers were not billing for parking; these fees were then able to expand into the eco-pass program that resulted in a constituency of public transportation advocates; these advocates were then involved in the community design process.
*Start small and change how RDT thought local transportation worked and now local transportation was paying for 2/3 of the system; they had to show the City of Boulder how to do it and ensured success by offering a community-led design process that exceeded ridership expectations in six weeks.
*Options to utilize transit tax.
*Contributions by the University of Colorado for buy-ups and routes and actual contribution of a part of student fees; how that relationship could expand with participation.
Further discussion followed regarding the transit ballot proposition and potential for outreach and to educate the public as well as potential to hire a separate lobbyist for the upcoming Legislative Session for big-ticket items such as the prison. Councilmember Garrott asked the Council to think about these items and provide feedback to Council Staff.
#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 9:04 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 September 8, 2015.
clm