Committee of the Whole
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Salt Lake County Council
Committee of the Whole
~Minutes~
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
2:37:12 PM
Committee Members
Present: Jennifer Wilson
Jim Bradley
Arlyn Bradshaw
Michael Jensen[1]
Aimee Newton
Sam Granato
Steven DeBry
Max Burdick
Richard Snelgrove, Chair
Citizen Public Input (2:37:22 PM)
Mr. Steve Van Maren spoke under “Citizen Public Input” stating a sign has been posted at the Draper Senior Center announcing an increase of the voluntary contribution for a lunch from $2.50 to $4.00. That is a 60 percent increase. The Friendly Neighborhood Senior Center’s lunches are also going up on April 1, to $3.00, which is a 20 percent increase. He realized senior centers need to cover costs, but wondered why the increases were not brought before the Council as part of the budget process.
Ms. Kimberly Barnett, Associate Deputy Mayor, stated the Mayor’s Office will look into that.
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
Legislative Intent (2:39:15 PM)
Mr. David Delquadro, Chief Financial Manager, Council Office, reviewed the legislative intent for 2015, clarifying the following items:
· On No. 1 Economic Impact of Lower Oil Prices and Mild Winter Weather on the 2015 Salt Lake County Budget, he has included that the Council work with the Mayor’s staff and the Salt Lake County Fleet Board to help ensure the timely completion of quantifying the budgetary savings. Mayor’s Finance has estimated that will be about $1 million.
· No. 2 is new legislative intent asking the Community Services Department to provide a quarterly written or oral update on the Equestrian Center. This replaced legislative intent that was satisfied.
· No. 3 is new legislative intent to convene a meeting among the Council, the Mayor, and the independent elected officials, during the first quarter of 2015, to discuss, evaluate, and explore possible improvements to the Salt Lake County budget process, as per a discussion on February 10, 2015.
· No. 5 Restrict Certain Appropriation Unit Shifts has been extended to 2015.
Council Member DeBry asked when the Equestrian Center quarterly updates would start.
Ms. Erin Litvack, Director, Community Services Department, stated she will bring that before the Council in April.
Council Member Wilson asked how the Council wanted to proceed with No. 3 Discussion of SLCO Budget Process. Budget authority is one of the Council’s primary roles, yet it is pressured to get the budget done with little time. It may be able to do some program reviews earlier so it is better prepared. She would like to plan how to do that, i.e. place it on an agenda for discussion, deputize Council staff to discuss it, or ask the Council’s fiscal staff how to move forward on it.
Mr. Delquadro suggested asking the Revenue Committee to meet with representatives from other offices and put something together. That would give the Council’s staff the opportunity to review revenues. He could bring committee recommendations to the Council by April. Then, the Council could have each of the departments come in early and give their budget overview. They did that last year, and it worked well. That would bring the Council up to speed on any changes. He suggested the Council staff discuss that in a Council staff meeting.
Council Member Burdick stated he would like to discuss coming up with some standard format for departments to follow for their presentations.
Council Member Wilson, seconded by Council Member Granato, moved to have the Council’s fiscal staff reach out to the Council’s senior policy advisors and the Revenue Committee between now and the end of April to get prioritization for items for the Council to review, prior to the budget roll out. The motion passed unanimously. Council Members Bradshaw and Jensen were absent for the vote.
Mr. Delquadro asked the Council for approval of the legislative intent for 2015.
Council Member Granato, seconded by Council Member DeBry, moved to ratify the legislative intent and forward it to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting for formal consideration. The motion passed unanimously. Council Member Jensen was absent for the vote.
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
Facilities Building Standards, Programming Decisions and Policy Update (2:48:16 PM)
Ms. Sarah Brenna, Director, Administrative Services Department, delivered a PowerPoint presentation giving an overview of building standards, programming decisions, and ordinances and policies. She reviewed the components of new building decisions, building standards, programming decisions, and the different kinds of buildings the County constructs. The goal is to build cost-effective facilities, built to a 50-year minimum, which can be enjoyed and utilized by community members for generations to come.
Council Member Newton stated the Council has the power to direct the allocation for art. She asked if the art allocation would be automatically factored into the bidding process.
Mr. Tyson Kyhl, Project Manager, Facilities Management Division, stated the one percent art allocation is included in the budget unless otherwise directed by the Council.
Ms. Brenna stated the design committee determines what art is appropriate for the customer. The art allocation is up to one percent and depends on the project and budget.
Mr. Kyhl continued the PowerPoint presentation stating the County has implemented the Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) certification program standards since 2005, and set a minimum goal of LEED Gold since 2009.
Ms. Megan Hillyard, Associate Director, Administrative Services Department, stated LEED is the most commonly used certificate program; it is understood by architects and construction managers.
Mr. Kyhl stated because of the standards already in place, Salt Lake County will generally fall into LEED Gold. Third party verification ensures maximum performance, building systems are performing as designed, and the building meets or exceeds high performance standards resulting in long-term cost savings. LEED is nationally known and recognized by the public as a measure of energy efficiency and routinely costs the same to build, but cost less to operate over time. Certification is not necessary; however, it is a Facilities Management standard because it adds high value for a low cost. There is a nominal fee compared to the total cost of a project to obtain certification.
Ms. Brenna stated the request is for the Council to support the programming decision process and continue supporting the LEED Gold standard.
Council Member DeBry asked who set the minimum standard at gold and what the difference is between gold, silver, and platinum.
Ms. Brenna stated the minimum standard of gold was set by the current administration; there was no formal policy or executive order signed.
Mr. Kyhl stated the difference between the LEED categories depends on what the project teams include in the program document and what the goals are for the building.
Council Member DeBry stated tax dollars need to be taken care of up front; the most cost efficient building without breaking the bank needs to be determined at the beginning stages.
Ms. Hillyard stated the building plan is not based on the LEED Gold score card. The high performance standards are considered first and then it is mapped back to the score card to determine what certificate is eligible. The nature of how Salt Lake County designs buildings, to save tax dollars up front, automatically qualifies the building for LEED Gold. After the building is designed, based on maximum efficiency and it is determined what LEED classification it falls into, then decisions are made on whether the certification and public acknowledgement should be obtained.
Council Member Wilson stated in 2005, the Council took action on LEED standards. Salt Lake County is one of the bigger builders and needs to be environmentally and fiscally responsible. LEED Gold is the appropriate standard.
Council Member Burdick stated architects start projects at LEED Gold being standard. Each project needs to be looked at to determine what the individual needs are.
Council Member Bradshaw stated the Council makes a decision on a building project and approves the budget to a certain amount. The building standards in place are appropriate and if the administrative side can build a more efficient building within that budget then great. If a request for money is made for specific efficiency models, then the Council can review it. The expectation should be that the Council sets the budget and the County builds the most efficient building within the building standards.
Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Wilson, moved to support the programming decision process and provide support for the LEED Gold as a minimum standard for Salt Lake County construction, in conjunction with the high performance building standards currently set.
Council Member Jensen stated the Council approves a set amount of dollars for a LEED Gold level building; however, he will not support a request for more money for a platinum certificate.
Ms. Brenna stated the Facilities Management Division determines the initial budget that includes requirements for a LEED Gold standard building. The costs are estimated up front based on previous LEED Gold buildings. Requesting more money for specific certifications has not been a problem in the past.
Council Member Bradley stated the appropriate approach is to determine the type of building needed, who is going to be using it, and what is important to make the building functional. The cost should be estimate and the LEED score card applied to determine what category the building falls into. The LEED score card should not drive the programming.
Ms. Hillyard stated often the buildings will fall very close if not into the platinum category. The cost estimate is based on the high performance standards; it would be an unlikely situation to be off the budget amount.
Council Member Snelgrove stated a minimum standard of LEED Gold is a good direction as it pertains to the quality of a building and how long it will last. County ordinance allows art allocations from zero up to 1 percent, which is decided by the Council. The Council would still be in compliance with the ordinance if it chose not to fund art.
Council Member Bradshaw, seconded by Council Member Wilson, moved to support the programming decision process and provide support for the LEED Gold as a minimum standard for Salt Lake County construction, in conjunction with the high
performance building standards currently set and forward it to the 4:00 p.m. Council meeting for formal consideration. The motion passed unanimously.
♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
ZAP Round III ~ General Obligation Bond Debt Proposal (3:40:55 PM)
Mr. Darrin Casper, Chief Financial Officer, Mayor’s Office, presented the Mayor’s proposal for a ZAP III General Obligation (GO) Debt and reviewed the outstanding GO debt service. Between 2017 and 2018, the annual GO debt levy that is utilized today to pay for the ZAP II bonds will drop by $10.191 million. The Mayor’s proposal is a continuation of that levy, although the actual issuance of debt would be done in the future. The levy would be for the $10,191,000 for a term of ten years, which is very conservative. The interest rate is assumed at 3.5 percent, but could go up or down. Based on those assumptions at the present value, the County could garner approximately $75 million over that ten-year period. The Mayor added a secondary proposal that one-third of that money be utilized for capital renewal or replacement of existing Salt Lake County assets. ZAP III will be slightly less than ZAP II since ZAP II also had TRCC related debt added to the project money, which will not be the case with ZAP III. Then, ongoing operational costs will be paid from TRCC and ZAP revenue growth depending on what projects are actually funded.
Ms. Erin Litvack, Director, Community Services Department, stated there is no way to quantify the estimated operations and maintenance costs for ZAP III projects knowing what projects would actually be funded. However, to give the Council a sense of what those costs could be, she explained the estimated operations and maintenance (O&M) costs of the ZAP II and Park Bond projects. She also reviewed the typical average annual parks and building capital maintenance, the total of which is $4,095,816. If the County adds $75 million worth of assets to its portfolio, the annual capital maintenance expense related to that would be about 2 to 4 percent of the total. Moving forward, the Mayor’s Office wants to plan to maintain its facilities from a capital perspective once they are built, but to do that, the County needs to be spending about $4 million a year. Currently, it is spending more than that on an annual basis to catch up on projects, since for years it did not do that.
Council Member Bradshaw asked if the County was allowed by statute to do replacement and renewal of existing assets with ZAP proceeds, or if because this was a separate bond, it did not have the same constraints as the ZAP tax.
Mr. Casper stated a general obligation bond does not have the same constraints as a ZAP tax; however, it does have bonding constraints and the funds must be used for a capital project, including capital renewal or replacement. Bond proceeds cannot be used for operations.