Salt Lake County CouncilCommittee of the Whole

~Minutes~Tuesday, August 4, 2015

1:04:57 PM

Committee Members Present: Jennifer Wilson1

Jim BradleyArlyn BradshawMichael JensenAimee NewtonSam GranatoSteven DeBryMax BurdickRichard Snelgrove, Chair

Citizen Public Input (1:04:57 PM)

Mr. George Chapman spoke under “Citizen Public Input” in opposition to the Transportation Sales Tax Ballot Proposal stating he is in a mayoral race with someone who claims the transportation tax is for service only, yet the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) has said it already budgeted for projects. Therefore, it is a lie that this tax is for service only. Putting a lie on the ballot will hurt the chances of it passing. The fact UTA would get 40 percent of the tax will also hurt the initiative. Cities and counties need the transportation tax in the future for important projects. He asked the Council to hold off putting this on the ballot for a year to see if it could increase the chance of its passage.

Mayor Troy Walker, Draper, spoke under “Citizen Public Input” in support of the Transportation Sales Tax Ballot Proposal stating this is a unique opportunity for the voters to decide how they want to handle their transportation future. If they know what they are paying for and that infrastructure will be improved and planned for in the future, they will be supportive of this tax. Citizens want cities to maintain and improve roads; however, cities do not have the funding mechanism to do that. The B&C Road Funds do not fund all the transportation needs. This tax is fair because everything travels by road. Mass transit is also an integral part of the transportation plan to help clean the air and provide better transportation options. This tax will make a difference in the community.

Mayor Bill Applegarth, Riverton, spoke under “Citizen Public Input” in support of the Transportation Sales Tax Ballot Proposal asking the Council to put this on the November 2015 ballot for the following reasons:

1) People should make the decision on whether to increase their tax burden themselves. They know more than elected officials about their ability to pay and the services they want.

1 Participated electronically.

Committee of the WholeTuesday, August 4, 2015

2) He trusted the people to make the correct decision no matter what percent of voter turnout there was.

3) The Council allowed for exceptions in the County ordinance that addresses tax increase initiatives being held in even years. This issue justifies the Council putting this on the ballot because it will be more cost effective to repair roads now rather than later. In addition, this issue will be talked about a lot, and the pros and cons will be out there for the public to consider. Therefore, they will understand the issue by November.

Mayor Kelvyn Cullimore, Cottonwood Heights, spoke under “Citizen Public Input” in support of the Transportation Sales Tax Ballot Proposal stating roads are deteriorating, and have been for the last 20 years. Repairing them is a cost that cannot be avoided. Residents understand that. With this opportunity, roads can be made functionable and extensive costs to rebuild them can be avoided. The fact the Legislature allowed for this is rare and indicative of its understanding this need is real. It is important to embrace that opportunity. If the Council postpones putting this on the ballot, it will send the message to the Legislature it thinks this is not important. On June 30, all 16 cities presented resolutions to the Council supporting this initiative. Of the 16 cities, 14 are doing vote by mail this year. Two years ago, Cottonwood Heights did its off-year election vote by mail, and raised voter turnout by 127 percent. The cities expect to see a similar increase in this off-year election. In addition, SB 199 is going to bring out a significant number of voters who live in the unincorporated County. It is important to maintain the momentum that has been built so far and allow citizens the opportunity to vote on this.

Mr. Ron Jibson, CEO, Questar Corporation, spoke under “Citizen Public Input” stating he represented the business community in support of the Transportation Sales Tax Ballot Proposal. The business community is prepared to provide voter education and support transportation initiatives going forward. Utah is unique in the country because of its investments and forward-thinking economic development. Questar has many fleet/service vehicles, which respond to emergencies and critical calls, so local infrastructure is critical for meeting its customers’ needs. Employees are also looking for alternative ways to get to work rather than driving. Mass transit provides that alternative. However, without funding, those things would not be possible. This is the right thing to do for cities, counties, and citizens. He encouraged the Council to vote in favor of it.

Mr. Steven Van Maren spoke under “Citizen Public Input” regarding the Transportation Sales Tax Ballot Proposal stating taxpayers are always getting hit with tax increases that never go away. This will be one of those. Then, UTA will be getting 8/10 of a cent of sales tax, which he objected to. He had no problem with the cities and counties using it for roads. UTA needs to enter into an agreement stipulating that the portion it receives would only be used for services, not capital infrastructure. He urged the Council to deter putting this on the ballot until that agreement is in place.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

2

Committee of the WholeTuesday, August 4, 2015

Human Services Department Overview Presentation (2:12:43 PM)

Ms. Lori Bays, Director, Human Services Department, delivered a PowerPoint presentation reviewing the Future We Choose goals. She highlighted the following common goals within the Human Services Department, which all divisions are working on, showing what each division is doing to achieve the goals, and the dashboard indicators for each goal:

Healthy People – Increase Access to Healthcare Healthy Places – Improve Air Quality Expanded Opportunities – Increase Literacy Responsive Government – Increase Employee Engagement

She reviewed the place-based initiative for the Kearns area, which the County is working on. This initiative will seek for ways to address the collective problems of families and communities at a local level, focusing on strengthening the community.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

Transportation Sales Tax Ballot Proposal ~ Language and Resolution (1:23:00 PM)

The Council reviewed the following resolution providing for a Special Election to be held at the same time as the General Election for the purpose of submitting to the voters the question of whether Salt Lake County should impose a 0.25 percent County Option Sales and Use Tax for highways and transportation; setting the ballot question; requesting the assistance of the County Clerk and other County agencies to conduct the election; providing for a public hearing and newspaper notice regarding the propose election; and prescribing other matters related to the election. The resolution and ballot language have been placed on the 4:00 p.m. Council agenda for formal consideration.

Council Member Granato stated one year ago, he co-sponsored an ordinance indicating that proposals to increase taxes needed to be voted on during a general election year. However, during the 2015 Legislative Session, H. B. 362 – Transportation Infrastructure was passed. Since then, he has been lobbied by colleagues in Weber, Davis, and Utah Counties as well as sixteen mayors and their city councils throughout the valley asking the County to let voters decide the issue this year. His biggest concern with this initiative is that 40 percent of the revenue generated is earmarked for the Utah Transit Authority (UTA). UTA has assured him that none of the money will go towards rail projects, but will be dedicated to enhancing and increasing bus and rail service. He is cautiously optimistic that is the case, but would ask Mayor McAdams to find a way to hold UTA to its commitment.

Council Member Bradshaw stated he is in favor of this resolution. There is a need and urgency to move forward with this issue now and not wait until the 2016 election. He

3

Committee of the WholeTuesday, August 4, 2015

respects the decision the Council made last year to strive to put bond initiatives on a general election ballot. The ordinance included the opportunity to allow initiatives to be placed on a municipal election year if two-thirds of the Council felt it was appropriate to do so.

Voter participation can be a concern; however, every city in this County has people running for city council this year, and city council members have taxing authority within their jurisdictions. It almost minimizes the city officials to suggest those election years do not count in some way. Furthermore, some of the largest cities have citywide elections, not just Salt Lake City, including the entire unincorporated County, West Valley City, Sandy City, West Jordan City, and South Salt Lake City. Putting this question on the ballot would help with those elections as well. The Council is not voting to increase taxes; the vote is to allow voters the ability to decide.

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Ballot Language

Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Bradley, moved to accept Exhibit A, which includes the following language:

EXHIBIT AFORM OF BALLOT

AN OPINION QUESTION TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS ROADS, SIDEWALKS, TRAILS, MAINTENANCE, BUS AND RAIL SERVICE, AND SAFETY FEATURES

Shall Salt Lake County, Utah, be authorized to impose a quarter-of-one-percent (0.25%, the equivalent of 1 cent for every $4 spent) sales and use tax for the specific purpose of transportation improvements, such as roads, trails, sidewalks, maintenance, bus and rail service, and traffic and pedestrian safety features, with revenues divided among the county, cities and towns, and the public transit provider within the County?

FOR THE TAX

AGAINST THE TAX

Council Member Jensen stated he likes the clarifying language indicating the 0.25 percent is the equivalent of 1 cent for every $4 spent. Most people think it is a quarter of every dollar.

Council Member Newton asked if there was a way to clarify the tax would be on nonfood purchases. It would not impact the tax paid for food.

Council Member Bradshaw stated the County is really limited in what it can say on the actual ballot language. That information could be included in the voter information pamphlet.

4

Committee of the WholeTuesday, August 4, 2015

Council Member Snelgrove stated nowhere in the ballot language does it clarify this is a tax increase. He asked if the word “increase” could be inserted after “sales and use tax.” That would make it clear to the voters that they are voting on a question regarding a tax increase.

Mr. Gavin Anderson, Deputy District Attorney, stated the statute imposes specific language, which the Council cannot change. Voters will know it is an increase when they check off the boxes “for the tax” or “against the tax”.

Council Member DeBry stated the Council should address the issue of placing this on the ballot, before the ballot language is discussed.

Council Member Bradshaw stated the ballot language is part of the resolution and the Council needs to make any changes to it before adopting the resolution.

Council Member Snelgrove stated he also has concerns with the ballot language, which states: “…with revenues divided among the county, cities and towns, and the public transit provider within the County?” Public transit needs to be clearly defined as Utah Transit Authority. He asked if language could be amended to read “… with revenues divided among the county, cities and towns, and the Utah Transit Authority within the County?”

Mr. Anderson stated that part of the ballot language is flexible because it falls under the section that says “describe the purpose of the proposed tax increase.” His concern is this is a statewide issue and there are several counties across the state that are contemplating this issue.

Council Member Snelgrove, seconded by Council Member DeBry, moved to change the ballot language as follows:

Shall Salt Lake County, Utah, be authorized to impose a quarter-of-one-percent (0.25%, the equivalent of 1 cent for every $4 spent) sales and use tax for the specific purpose of transportation improvements, such as roads, trails, sidewalks, maintenance, bus and rail service, and traffic and pedestrian safety features, with revenues divided among the county, cities and towns, and the Utah Transit Authority within the County?

Mayor Ben McAdams stated he is not sure the language can be changed to state Utah Transit Authority. There is a direct prohibition against specific legislation. Legislation cannot be drafted to target a specific entity or a specific person.

Council Member Snelgrove, seconded by Council Member DeBry, moved to change the ballot language as follows:

Shall Salt Lake County, Utah, be authorized to impose a quarter-of-one-percent (0.25%, the equivalent of 1 cent for every $4 spent) sales and use tax for the specific purpose of transportation improvements, such as roads, trails, sidewalks, maintenance, bus and rail

5

Committee of the WholeTuesday, August 4, 2015

service, and traffic and pedestrian safety features, with revenues divided among the county, cities and towns, and the Utah Transit Authority within the County? The motion failed 7 to 2 with Council Members Snelgrove and DeBry voting in favor.

Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Bradley, moved to accept Exhibit A, which includes the following language:

EXHIBIT AFORM OF BALLOT

AN OPINION QUESTION TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS ROADS, SIDEWALKS, TRAILS, MAINTENANCE, BUS AND RAIL SERVICE, AND SAFETY FEATURES

Shall Salt Lake County, Utah, be authorized to impose a quarter-of-one-percent (0.25%, the equivalent of 1 cent for every $4 spent) sales and use tax for the specific purpose of transportation improvements, such as roads, trails, sidewalks, maintenance, bus and rail service, and traffic and pedestrian safety features, with revenues divided among the county, cities and towns, and the public transit provider within the County?

FOR THE TAX

AGAINST THE TAX

The motion passed 7 to 2 with Council Member Snelgrove and DeBry voting in opposition.

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Resolution

Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to forward the resolution to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting for final adoption recognizing that six Council Members will need to vote in favor of this resolution.

Council Member DeBry stated he knows governments need money for infrastructure. The question for him is when to place this on the ballot. The appropriate time is next year during the presidential election because there will be a higher voter turnout. Also, County Ordinance No. 1776, which was adopted last year, states “that an election held to obtain voter authorization to impose a sales and use tax under this title should be held during a regular general election conducted in accordance with the procedures and requirements of state law.” This ordinance was adopted with a vote of seven Council Members in favor, one Council Member opposed, and one Council Member abstaining. He asked what had changed from last year to now. The principle the Council voted on as a body remains important.

He read the following excerpt from the August 26, 2014, Committee of the Whole minutes:

6

Committee of the WholeTuesday, August 4, 2015

Council Member Granato stated major issues such as tax initiatives should have more voters. In 2013, voter turn-out was 25.82 percent; in 2010 voter turn-out was 54.02 percent; and in 2012 it was 87.11 percent. General election years have significantly more voters. Citizens should be engaged in the process of raising or not raising taxes.

This statement is as true today as it was a year ago. Salt Lake County residents just had a $74 million property tax increase as well as a .5 cent per gallon tax increase. Residents need time to assess what affect these increases will have on their family budgets. He will be voting against this resolution today because he cannot ignore the 400+ emails and 200 phone calls that he has received.

Council Member Newton stated she initially thought that 2016 would be the better year to place this on the ballot, but had to reevaluate because she believes the government closest to the people governs best, and that is the cities. County government needs to do what it can to help cities be successful, so when all 16 city mayors and their city councils signed a resolution requesting this initiative be placed on the 2015 ballot, she could not turn her back on them. She will be voting in favor of placing this on the 2015 ballot to show she supports the government closest to the people.

Council Member Jensen stated to him this comes down to a timing issue. The Council is not voting to increase taxes, but voting when to allow citizens the right to make this decision. Cities have no revenue options; the only other option for cities would be to increase property taxes. The message has been loud and clear from all 16 cities and the business community that citizens need to vote on this issue this year. The County’s economy thrives due, in part, to the infrastructure that the County has. This infrastructure needs to be maintained.

The Council did vote last year to only put proposed tax increases on the ballot during presidential election years, but as part of that discussion, the Council knew exceptions would happen. The State Legislature offered the County this opportunity, and he did not know how it would react if the County did not authorize the option to allow a vote on this issue this year.

He asked that when the interlocal agreement with UTA is written, it be narrowly construed to indicate these funds are to be used for bus service only. The County has already done a lot for the light rail system and FrontRunner.

Council Member Burdick stated he trusted the people to make the right decision. Regardless of the election cycle, people can get out and vote. There is a real need for transportation improvements and/or maintenance on roads, trails, sidewalks, bus and rail service, and traffic and pedestrian safety features. This tax would provide the funds necessary. He did not like to see things in disrepair. So when all the municipalities in Salt Lake County tell the Council this is needed and this year is a good time to do it, the Council needs to listen. This needs to be placed on the ballot so the decision can be made by many and not just a few.

7

Committee of the WholeTuesday, August 4, 2015

Council Member DeBry stated that is exactly his reason as to why this should be placed on the 2016 ballot. More people will be voting then; the decision will not be made by a few voters.

Council Member Burdick stated when he said the decision needs to be made by many and not just a few, he was referring to the nine County Council members.

Council Member DeBry made a substitute motion to place this issue on the 2016 general election ballot with the understanding that the interlocal agreement with UTA limits the revenue it would receive from this tax to improvements to bus services.

Mr. Jason Rose, Legal Counsel, Council Office, stated there could be legal ramifications with the motion. The Council does not enter into interlocal agreements; the Mayor does, and the Mayor cannot promise UTA that the Council will put this on the ballot.

Council Member DeBry made a substitute motion to place this issue on the 2016 general election ballot contingent upon a commitment with UTA that the revenue it would receive from this tax be used towards improvements to bus services. The motion died due to the lack of a second.

Council Member Wilson stated she is supportive of placing this on the 2015 ballot. It is clear that roads and congestion will not get any better unless something is done. The Legislature gave the County the opportunity to let citizens decide if they supported a tax increase. Local government not only supports placing this on the ballot, but each entity has signed resolutions and taken the time to talk to Council Members requesting this initiative be placed on the ballot. This is the right time to take this issue to a broader debate, so the citizens can make this decision.

Council Member Snelgrove stated he will be voting against this resolution for the following reasons:

He conducted Council-on-the-Corner meetings in the Millcreek area, South Salt Lake, and the final one in the Magna area, and has heard from many constituents, all of whom told him there is no appetite for this tax increase. His position of opposing this is on the side of public opinion and reflects the will of the people regarding this issue. He has come under intense pressure because this not only affects Salt Lake County, but the rest of the state is looking to see what Salt Lake County does. Pressure has also come from many different factors including the possible loss of endorsements and the ability to raise funds for future campaigns. However, his vote is not for sale. His vote is to reflect the will of the people.

When the Council adopted Ordinance No. 1776 last year, it had valid reasons and those reasons are just as valid today. This tax will affect 100 percent of taxpayers so all taxpayers need the opportunity to weigh in on the increase. There are areas in the County that do not have a municipal election and will not have the opportunity to vote on this initiative.

8

Committee of the WholeTuesday, August 4, 2015

The statement that vote by mail will enhance voter turnout is true. Cottonwood Heights participated in a vote by mail at the last election and saw an increase to 40.6 percent, and West Jordan voter turnout increased to 34.3 percent as compared to 87 percent in the last presidential election. However, there will be no vote by mail in West Valley City and Taylorsville City, which will still have a low voter turnout among the teens.

The fact that Salt Lake City has a heated mayor’s race, which will help drive voter turnout will result in a disproportional representation of the issue in the November election. Whereas in a presidential election year, it would be more fairly represented.

People have a right to view this with full transparency, which means in context with other tax increases and the total tax burden they are facing. Voters are facing an increase in the gasoline tax, school districts and water districts are raising taxes, and property taxes are going up as well. In 2016, the voters will be able to evaluate the tax burden in a complete context with what they are getting hit with from every direction.

Council Member Newton stated it will be important to make sure the voters are educated on this issue so they know where the funding is going. She requested a list from UTA as well as all the entities showing what projects they intend to fund. This information could be included in the voter information guide as well as the County website.

Mayor McAdams stated the Transportation Coalition has a list that will be published to inform the voters what projects will be funded.

Council Member Jensen stated if the resolution is passed, then everyone in the County will have the opportunity to vote; it will become a countywide election.

Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to forward the resolution to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting recognizing that six Council

Members will need to vote in favor of this resolution. The motion passed 7 to 2 with Council Members Snelgrove and DeBry voting in opposition.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

Transportation Resolutions and Interlocal Agreements (2:50:44 PM)

Mr. Patrick Reimherr, Director of Government Relations and Senior Advisor, Mayor’s Office, reviewed the following resolutions. The resolutions authorizing execution of interlocal agreements have been placed on the Council agenda for final approval and execution. These resolutions are in response to H.B. 420, which dealt with certain transportation funding issues and specifically set out different projects within Salt Lake County. This is the second of a three-step transportation funding package:

1) Sandy City regarding funding for regional development.

9

Committee of the WholeTuesday, August 4, 2015

2) Herriman City regarding funding for regional development.

3) Cottonwood Heights City, Draper City, Governor’s Office of Economic Development, Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy, Park City Municipal Corporation, Sandy City, Salt Lake City, Summit County, Town of Alta, Utah Department of Transportation, Utah Transit Authority, and Wasatch County for Wasatch Summit Phase II.

Council Member Newton stated it sounded like this is money the Legislature gave the County to use for highway or transportation purposes, yet the County is transferring $6 million to Sandy City for a parking garage, which she understood the County would be able to lease.

Mr. Reimherr stated the County is transferring this money to Sandy City with the expectation it will build a parking structure within a certain number of feet of the South Towne Exposition Center to meet the long-term parking needs there. The agreement is for 1,250 stalls, for 32 years. That is about $150 a stall.

Council Member Newton asked if the County was expecting to receive more

business at the Expo Center with this parking, and if it had looked at other parking options.

Ms. Erin Litvack stated she did not think it would provide a financial benefit to the Expo Center, but 24 weekends every year, it needs parking beyond the 1,900 stalls on site. Up until about nine months ago, the County had an agreement with Worker’s Compensation Fund to utilize a lot across the street from the Expo Center for overflow parking. However, development in that area moved forward, so Worker’s Compensation gave the County notice of vacancy for that lot. This agreement would allow the County to use parking that gets built in the area to replace the parking it lost. The County also has an agreement with Jordan Commons, but it is on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the school district will sometimes allow the County to use a school to the south, but that is problematic for the neighborhood. This would give the County a permanent alternative for 32 years.

Council Member Burdick asked if the County had any long-term plans to build a parking structure on its current Expo Center site.

Ms. Litvack stated the County did look into doing that at one time, but is no longer considering that. This proposal will offer a permanent solution unless the County expands the Expo Center, at which time it would look into an onsite parking solution.

Council Member DeBry, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to approve the resolutions and forward them to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting for formal consideration.

Council Member Newton stated what concerned her was the County transferring these funds to Sandy City asking it to fix the County’s parking problem, without an exact plan.

10

Committee of the WholeTuesday, August 4, 2015

Council Member Burdick stated he had the same concern.

Mr. Reimherr stated the agreement does say a parking structure will be built within a certain radius. The Mayor’s Office would also be happy to bring any final agreement on a parking structure to the Council before the Mayor finalizes it.

Council Member Burdick asked to pull the interlocal agreement with Sandy City for one week to allow time to understand it.

Council Member DeBry, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to approve the resolutions and forward them to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting for formal consideration. Council Member DeBry amended the motion to approve the resolutions with the exception of the resolution with Sandy City, and forward them to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

Real Estate (2:59:58 PM )

Mr. Carlton Christensen, Director, Office of Regional Development, reviewed the following resolution. The resolution authorizing execution of a real estate purchase contract has been placed on the Council agenda for final approval and execution.

Archer & Beck LLC regarding the purchase of 2.5 acres of property at 193 and 195 West 2100 South for regional development and public access improvement.

This property is east of the Central Pointe TRAX Station. When TRAX was originally built at this location, the property was not available. South Salt Lake City is in the process of creating a downtown plan, but has not yet defined the transportation corridor. However, the property owner is ready to sell the property. This is an opportunity to solve the east access problem from the surrounding neighborhood and community, and an opportunity for South Salt Lake City to create some development there. This TRAX station is one of UTA’s largest growing locations since all the rail lines come through it, including the S line.

Council Member Snelgrove asked if this would bind the County to a film center.

Mr. Christensen state no. Once South Salt Lake finishes its plan for the city and identifies the transportation corridor, a discussion will need to take place about the disposition of the remaining property.

Ms. Nicole Dunn, Deputy Mayor, stated the Council will have to appropriate funds from the Transportation Fund to purchase the property, so when the County sells any remaining property that is not needed for transportation improvements, proceeds would go back to the Transportation Fund. The Mayor’s Office would have to make a request to the Council in order to use that property for anything else.

11

Committee of the WholeTuesday, August 4, 2015

Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Burdick, moved to approve the resolution and forward it to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously.

Mayor Ben McAdams disclosed he owned two rental properties on the other end of this property. They are 13 blocks away, but connected to the transit line.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

ZAP Recreation Facilities Project Application Form

This matter was not discussed.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

311 Constituent Relationship Management (CRM) Project (3:22:44 PM)

Ms. Megan Hillyard, Associate Director, Administrative Services Department, delivered a PowerPoint presentation updating the Council on the progress towards implementing a 311 system in Salt Lake County. She reviewed why a 311 system is needed, including the challenges and opportunities it presents. She stated there are a lot of different options available for the County from a full blown system with a call center to other options that would be just as valuable.

Mr. James Sullivan, consultant, International City/County Management Association, (ICMA) continued the PowerPoint presentation outlining the project goals, how 311 works, basic 311 contact types, project organization structure, and the project timeline. He stated this week, employee meetings will be held, technology/business surveys will be sent out, and interviews will be conducted with key subject matter experts.

Ms. Hillyard asked that the Council be represented on the project team for this project.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

Community/Council Contribution (3:06:45 PM)

Council Member Bradley stated several weeks ago, he was asked if the County could donate to the Utah Tibetan Association for the completion of the Tibetan Community Center in South Salt Lake. The Tibetan Association is several hundred dollars short in being able to complete it. This year, the Parliament of the World’s Religions is being held in Salt Lake County, and the Dalai Lama will be here for that. The Tibetan community would like to have the community center finished by the time he arrives, so he can consecrate and bless it. He asked the Council to approve a one-time $5,000 contribution to the Utah Tibetan Association to assist in completing the Tibetan Community Center.

12

Committee of the WholeTuesday, August 4, 2015

Mr. Dale Cox, President, Utah AFL-CIO, stated the labor community is involved in building the Tibetan Community Center providing plumbing, painting, and sprinkler fitting services, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) has been helping with wiring. The Tibetan community chipped in to purchase the building and are working several jobs to help pay for it, and Tibetan families are there working every night. This is a great community and a great project. Any additional help the County could give would be appreciated.

Council Member Burdick asked where the funds would come from.

Mr. David Delquadro, Chief Financial Manager, Council Office, stated there is only $3,000 left in the Council’s Contribution Fund. However, the Council can move some funds within its operating budget.

Council Member Burdick, seconded by Council Member Newton, moved to approve a $2,500 contribution from the Council’s Contribution Fund to the Utah Tibetan Association.

Council Member Bradley, seconded by Council Member Granato, made a substitute motion to approve a $5,000 contribution to the Utah Tibetan Association.

Council Member DeBry asked Council Member Bradley how he came up with $5,000.

Council Member Bradley stated it is one-tenth what the AFL-CIO put in, and he figured the Council could afford that.

Council Member Newton stated she was concerned this would set a precedent, wherein the Council would keep spending funds on projects and move money around to do it. The Council set the Contribution Fund, and she thought it should stay within that.

Council Member Bradshaw asked the Mayor’s Office if they could contribute $2,500 from the Stat & General Fund.

Mr. Darrin Casper, Chief Financial Officer, Mayor’s Office, stated yes, it can.

Council Member Bradley, seconded by Council Member Granato, made a substitute motion to approve a $5,000 contribution to the Utah Tibetan Association. Council Member Bradley amended the substitute motion to contribute $2,500 to the Utah Tibetan Association from the Council’s Contribution Fund, and $2,500 from the Stat & General Fund.

Council Member Jensen stated he worried that if the Council is going to set a budget for contributions and only contribute until it runs out of money, Council Members will be in a race to get their project in first. The Council needs to allocate funds because it is the right

13

Committee of the WholeTuesday, August 4, 2015

thing to do, or not do it at all. At some point, the Council has to live within the budget or allocate more money to the Contribution Fund by moving funds out of other line items.

Council Member Bradley stated issues always come up, and if there is enough value in a request, the Council needs to be flexible and figure out how to contribute.

Mayor McAdams stated exigent circumstances do arise, and this is one of them. Initially, the Tibetan community approached him asking for funds to help with the building. They had purchased the building, but expended all their funds on a new roof and were unable to finish the interior; then, found out the Dalai Lama was coming to Utah in October. He connected them with the AFL-CIO, and helped raise some of the donations, but could not do much more than that. However, this request cannot wait until the annual budget and it is small enough in nature, he felt comfortable supporting it.

Council Member Bradley, seconded by Council Member Granato, made a substitute motion to approve a $5,000 contribution to the Utah Tibetan Association. Council Member Bradley amended the motion to contribute $2,500 to the Utah Tibetan Association from the Council’s Contribution Fund, and $2,500 from the Stat & General Fund. The motion failed 4 to 5. Council Members Burdick, DeBry, Jensen, Newton, and Snelgrove voted in opposition.

Council Member Burdick, seconded by Council Member Newton, moved to approve a $2,500 contribution from the Council’s Contribution Fund to the Utah Tibetan Association.

Council Member Jensen told Mr. Cox to see what he could get done with the $2,500, and if he needed more funds, to come back and the Council would see if it could find the other $2,500.

Council Member Burdick, seconded by Council Member Newton, moved to approve a $2,500 contribution from the Council’s Contribution Fund to the Utah Tibetan Association. Council Member Jensen amended the motion to ask Mr. Cox to see what he could get done with the $2,500, and if he needed more funds, to come back and the Council would see if it could find the other $2,500. Council Member Burdick accepted the amendment. The motion passed unanimously.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

Community Preservation Election – Voter Information Pamphlet ( 3:36:39 PM )

During the July 21, 2015, Committee of the Whole meeting, the Council made the following motion: Council Member Wilson, seconded by Council Member Newton, moved to approve the two post card mailings and to be flexible in adding a third mailing, and maybe a bigger information piece if needed. The external communications

14

Committee of the WholeTuesday, August 4, 2015

committee should come up with language and bring the recommendation to the Council. The Council will not pursue the traditional voter information guide. Council Member Newton amended the motion to include approval to utilize the space on the back of the map for the verbiage that has been proposed. Council Member Wilson accepted the amendment. The motion passed unanimously. Council Member DeBry was absent for the vote.

Mr. Jason Rose, Legal Counsel, Council Office, stated the County received word from the Lieutenant Governors’ Office, the election officer for the state of Utah, that it was concerned about the decision to not issue a voter information pamphlet on community preservation. He believes that is required under state law.

Ms. Kara Trevino, Legislative Specialist, Council Office, outlined the following procedure for producing a voter information pamphlet:

Citizens can submit an argument for or against the options to be voted on. The arguments need to be received by August 31, 2015. If more than one argument for an area is submitted, then the County Council will decide which argument will be published. Priority will be given to a member of the County Council or a City Council member. The arguments cannot be longer than 500 words.

The pamphlet must contain the wording that the arguments are the opinions of the authors.

The County will need to pay for the printing and mailing of the pamphlet. The pamphlet needs to be sent out at least 15 days before the election, but not sooner than 45 days.

The County is required to either send a preaddressed, prepaid postcard to every household indicating a voter pamphlet can be obtained by returning the postcard.

Instead of the postcard, the County can mail the voter information pamphlet to every household with a registered voter.

Ms. Sherrie Swensen, County Clerk, stated she received a quote of $11,123 to mail a 16-page, newsprint voter information pamphlet to every household with a registered voter (approximately 35,000). This cost is not set; many variables would affect it. If the Council decided to send a postcard with a detachable portion to be sent back to the County requesting a voter information guide, it would cost $3,358 for the printing, $4,500 to $5,000 for the postage, and an additional .58 cents to return the postcard, plus the cost of approximately $1.15 to send out the pamphlet. Overall, it would be less costly and more efficient to send the pamphlet to every household with a registered voter. Another consideration would be the cost of labor to keep track of all the requests and getting the pamphlets ready to send out. When the Lieutenant Governor’s Office mailed a postcard for an election a few years ago, they proved to be very confusing for citizens. The pamphlet version is more straightforward, and in the long run, will not be more expensive.

15

Committee of the WholeTuesday, August 4, 2015

Council Member Newton, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved that the County mail out a voter information pamphlet to every household with a registered voter, and that a press release and emails to the unincorporated areas be issued to solicit arguments for the ballot questions. The arguments will need to be consolidated for the islands. If this is problematic, then the Council can look at it on a case-by-case basis. A third postcard will not be sent out unless there are last minute concerns that need to be addressed. The Council will continue to include the glossary of terms on the back of the maps. The motion passed unanimously. Council Members Wilson and Bradley were absent for the vote.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

Review of Proposed Hires (3:47:01 PM )

Mr. Brad Kendrick, Budget & Policy Analyst, Council Office, reviewed the following proposed hires:

Agency Position

Parks & Recreation Construction & Maintenance Specialist 173 Lead Custodial Worker 15Child Care Group Leader 14

Office of Township Services Economic Development Director (appointed)

Assessor’s Office Personal Property Audit Manager 32

District Attorney’s Office Legal Secretary 19/21Office Specialist 15Secretary 17

Sheriff’s Office Warehouse/Dockworker 15

Surveyor’s Office Survey Technician 23/25

Youth Services Division 4 Afterschool Program Coordinator 23

Salt Lake County Health Department 4 Bilingual Administrative Support 15Health Educator 222 Public Health Nutritionist 23Public Health Nutritionist 23 (part time)STD Health Investigator 21/23Emergency Response Coordinator 28Public Health Nurse 30Vital Records Specialist 16

16

Committee of the WholeTuesday, August 4, 2015

Behavioral Health Services Division Quality Assurance Coordinator 28 (time limited)

Aging and Adult Services Division Community Care Transitions Case Manager 24Outreach Caseworker 202 Case Manager 24

Library Services Division Customer Service Specialist 15 (part time)Public Services Librarian 26Customer Service Specialist 15

Planning & Development Services Division Planner 29

Engineering & Flood Control Division District Worker 15/17Watershed Planner 28

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

Interim Budget Adjustments (3:47:19 PM)

Mr. Brad Kendrick, Assistant Fiscal Analyst, Council Office, reviewed the following interim budget adjustment requests, which have been placed on the Council agenda for formal consideration:

District Attorney

Requests an interim budget adjustment of $8,550 for 114 attorneys’ memberships to the National District Attorney Association. This will entail using funds from Asset Forfeiture collections.

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Engineering and Flood Control Division

Requests an interim budget adjustment of $255,000 for additional unexpected costs to the Magna Main Livable Street project and the Emigration Canyon Transportation Study. This will entail transferring funds from the General Excise Tax Bond project.

Requests an interim budget adjustment of $103,000 for additional costs to the 5400 S Kearns Storm Drain Repair project and the 2700 E Curve Sidewalk project. This will entail transferring funds from other projects.

Requests an interim budget adjustment of $350,000 for additional costs to the 2300 E Road Improvement project and to close the State Tranpsortation Bond. This will entail transferring funds from the Rose Canyon project.

17

Committee of the WholeTuesday, August 4, 2015

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Facilities Management Division ~ Center for the Arts

Requests an interim budget adjustment to transfer $15,000 from the Roof Top Enclosure and Boiler (Phase 2) project underexpend to the Condensate Return Station project for the Center for the Arts.

− − − − − − − − − − − − − −

Animal Services Division

Requests an interim budget adjustment of $10,750 to replace the industrial garage door.

Council Member Newton, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to approve the requests and forward them to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting for formal consideration. The motion passed unanimously. Council Members Bradley and Wilson were absent for the vote.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

Review of Planning and Zoning Applications (3:50:13 PM)

Mr. Jason Rose, Legal Counsel, Council Office, reviewed the following planning and zoning application, for which a public hearing will be set for September 1, 2015:

Application #29491 – Robert Jones to reclassify property located at 3965–3971 South 300 East from R-2-10 to R-M zone.

Mr. Jones is requesting this zone change in order to develop a multi-family project. The Millcreek Community Council and the Millcreek Township Planning Commission have recommended approval with zoning conditions, which limits the height of the structure not to exceed 32 feet and the density for the development not to exceed 22 units per acre.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

CONSENT AGENDA (3:50:13 PM)

Constable

The Council reviewed the following constable appointment, which has been placed on the Council agenda for final approval and execution:

18

Committee of the WholeTuesday, August 4, 2015

Appointment of Chad Wixom to serve as a deputy constable under Constable Larry Bringhurst.

Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Jensen, moved to approve the appointment and forward it to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting for formal consideration. The motion passed unanimously. Council Members Bradley and Wilson were absent for the vote.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

Resolution and Amendment to Interlocal Agreement

The Council reviewed the following resolution and amendment to the interlocal agreement. The resolution authorizing execution of the amendment to the interlocal agreement has been placed on the Council agenda for final approval and execution:

Taylorsville City regarding bailiff and security services for an additional one-year period.

Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Jensen, moved to approve the resolution and forward it to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting for formal consideration. The motion passed unanimously. Council Members Bradley and Wilson were absent for the vote.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

Resolution, Real Estate Donation Contract, and Declaration of Gift to Salt Lake County

The Council reviewed the following resolution, real estate donation contract, and declaration of gift to Salt Lake County. The resolution authorizing execution of the donation contract, and the declaration of gift have been placed on the Council agenda for final approval and execution:

Mary Jo Sweeney Revocable Trust has offered to donate 1.43 acres of land at approximately 771 Emigration Canyon Road, which the County will maintain as open space.

Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Jensen, moved to accept the donation, and forward the resolution and declaration of gift to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting for formal consideration. The motion passed unanimously. Council Members Bradley and Wilson were absent for the vote.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

4700 South Federal Aid Agreement

19

Committee of the WholeTuesday, August 4, 2015

The Council reviewed a request to send a letter to the Utah Department of Transportation reserving the right for Salt Lake County to be an additional contracting party and bondholder or obligee on performance bonds related to the 4700 South Project (Project No. Project F-22420(2)0, Pin No. 11085), located at 4000 West to 5600 West.

Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Jensen, moved to approve the request and forward it to the Council meeting for formal consideration. The motion passed unanimously. Council Members Bradley and Wilson were absent for the vote.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

Other Business (3:50:13 PM)

Minutes

Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Jensen, moved to approve the Committee of the Whole minutes for Tuesday, July 14, 2015, and Tuesday, July 21, 2015. The motion passed unanimously.

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

The meeting adjourned at 3:51:14 PM.

___________________________________Chair, Committee of the Whole

___________________________________Deputy Clerk

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦

20