City Council

Minutes of Work Session of Council of Ogden City, Utah, February 3, 2015 Page Minutes of the Work Session of the Ogden City Council held on Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Work Room on the third floor of the Municipal Building, 2549 Washington Boulevard, Ogden City, Weber County, Utah. Present: Chair Richard A. Hyer Vice Chair Marcia L. White Council members Bart E. Blair (arrived at 5:39 p.m.) Neil K. Garner Caitlin K. Gochnour Doug Stephens Amy L. Wicks Council Executive Director Bill Cook Deputy Executive Director Janene Eller-Smith Council Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Communications Manager Amy Sue Mabey Also present: Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Information Technology Manager Blake Wilkinson Information Technology Operation Manager Andy Lefgren Public Services Director Jay Lowder City Engineer Justin Anderson Public Utilities Manager Kenton Moffett Community and Economic Development Director Tom Christopulos Deputy Community and Economic Development Manager Brandon Cooper Management Services Director David G. Buxton Finance Senior Accountant Camille Cook Deputy City Recorder Abbie Zampedri The purpose of the Work Session was to review the specific projects proposed in the FY2016-2020 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), discuss the WaterSMART Grant Application, and to discuss Council business. Review specific projects proposed in the FY2016-2020 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Deputy Executive Director Eller-Smith noted each year the Council holds a series of work sessions to consider the CIP; during these work sessions, the Council will consider the proposed projects and make recommendations for change. The CIP will be adopted after allowing public input and, ultimately, will be used to prioritize the funding of capital projects during the FY2016 Budget process. She reported representatives of several City Departments have been invited to attend tonight’s meeting and answer any questions the Council has provided to date. Senior Accountant Cook addressed the general questions listed in the Council packet. The first question asked for an explanation of how contingency funds will be made available to CIP projects given that the Critical Contingency project has been removed from the proposed CIP. She stated that the Critical Contingency fund, which was funded at $100,000, has been unused for the past couple of years and it will be carried forward for future needs, if any. She noted the three remaining questions will be addressed in presentations made by other Department representatives. Community and Economic Development Director Christopulos addressed questions five and six in the packet; question five asked for a brief overview of what is planned or hoped for for the 12th Street Retail Center/Fred Meyer site. A new owner purchased the property two years ago and initially they wanted to pursue a retail project, but a year ago they presented a new plan, which incorporates an emergency room and clinic hospital facility. Discussions and negotiations are ongoing relative to which use is best for the site and he is hopeful a decision can be made soon. He noted question six asks whether Business Depot Ogden (BDO) tax increment funds, rather than lease revenue funds, can be used for the CD119 BDO FrontRunner Platform project. He stated the answer is yes and the funds have been set aside for the property acquisition for the project. There was a general discussion regarding the need to study the viability of a FrontRunner station at BDO, with Mr. Christopolus noting the project will not occur within the next year, but it is appropriate to consider it within a five year plan. Planning Manager Montgomery addressed question four listed in the general question section; it asked how the International Destination Sign (Hof sign) will be funded and why the project is not included in the CIP. He stated that the sign will cost approximately $30,000 and will qualify as a Percent for Arts project. He added that the project was identified after the proposed CIP was developed and that is the reason it was not included in the plan. He stated he will have more firm bids for the project later this week. Council member Stephens inquired as to the timeline of the project, to which Mr. Montgomery reported this spring upon receiving favorable approval from the Council.  Public Services Director Lowder provided the Council with an update regarding a situation he has been dealing with today; at approximately 1376 20th Street there was a shallow landslide and staff is working with geotechnical engineers to determine what needs to be done to secure the area. The 12-inch water line in the area ruptured and water crews shut down water last night, but water service has been restored to all customers in the area. Mr. Lowder then addressed the questions in the Council packet relating to projects in his Department. He addressed general question two, which asked for an explanation as to why the Golden Hours parking lot repairs are listed separately from the general city parking lot repair projects. The Golden Hour Parking Lot project is a much older CIP project that has been in the plan for several years; it is also different than general parking lot repairs in that it needs surface treatments as well as more in-depth repairs to the concrete retaining wall around it and lighting upgrades. He added that the project is also on hold while the determination is made as to whether there will be opportunities to improve the Golden Hours parking lot in conjunction with the Lester Park project. He addressed question three, which asked for an explanation as to how Administration identified the projects for which the community plan project funds would be used (projects PK124 and EN085) and noted that he used the best available information from the Planning Division for all community plans throughout the City and selected the top two rated projects from those plans; one was from the Mountain View Community Plan and the other was from the East Central Community Plan. City Engineer Anderson assisted in addressing questions directed toward the Public Services Department. He addressed question seven, which asked for information regarding various sidewalk programs in the City, by first providing a brief report regarding the sidewalk work completed in 2014, noting there are still roughly 687 sidewalk issues remaining to be addressed throughout the City and he reviewed a map that included red dots identifying those locations, which date back to 2012. In total, it would cost over $900,000 to fix all sidewalk issues and he has noticed an increase in cost of approximately 2.5 percent per location each year. There was a general discussion regarding how sidewalk repair projects are prioritized, with Mr. Anderson noting his Department uses a very extensive process to determine prioritization. He reviewed a copy of the informational material regarding the 50/50 concrete replacement program and noted that staff tries to make the program very accessible to the public, especially when residents call to report a sidewalk issue near their home. He also reviewed the list of new sidewalk projects slated for the coming construction season, after which he provided information regarding the school sidewalk program and projects to be completed. He stated each school’s Student Neighborhood Access Plan (SNAP) is considered when determining appropriate school sidewalk projects, as well as the level of use, costs of right of way acquisition, and feasibility of the project. Council member Gochnour asked why right of way acquisition is necessary. Mr. Anderson responded that in some areas of the City, sidewalk easement dedication was handled differently and the City does not have an automatic easement. He then addressed the section of the question that inquired as to whether the Administration has developed a strategy for addressing the backlog of maintenance issues. He noted the backlog is a result of lack of funding and it is necessary to evaluate funding options for the projects. He noted additional funds in the 50/50 program would not help fund the backlog and, instead, additional funding could be utilized more efficiently to develop a sidewalk saw-cut program throughout the City. Saw-cutting provides a more uniform cut than grinding and is more successful at eliminating trip hazards. Mr. Lowder added that saw-cutting is also quicker than grinding so labor costs are much less. The Council engaged in a discussion regarding the components of a saw-cutting program, with a focus on the City’s liability associated with sidewalk disrepair. Mr. Cook noted that in the past there has been some discussion regarding using money that will be available upon the payoff of a general obligation (GO) bond, up to $1 million per year, to address sidewalk replacements. Chief Administrative Officer Johnson stated Administration has considered that option, but is also awaiting the outcome of the fuel tax discussion among the State Legislature; a fuel tax could generate additional revenue that could be used for sidewalk projects. Council member Wicks stated it would be nice to address sidewalk issues in commercial areas, possibly with a 50/50 program for businesses, since there is more potential for trips in areas that experience more use. Mr. Cook noted that would require a policy change and Council member Wicks stated she would be willing to entertain a policy change. Council member Gochnour referenced recent construction work around 32 nd Street and noted there are some areas without sidewalk and there was some discussion regarding constructing new sidewalk in those older areas; she asked if that idea was ever vetted. Mr. Anderson stated that within the 32nd Street sidewalk project the goal was to provide connectivity to the two schools in that area, but completing additional sidewalks in the vicinity of the project became a funding issue and the question was whether it was more important to install new sidewalks or fixing sidewalks that are deficient. Currently the 50/50 program is not available for residents to install new sidewalks. Council member Gochnour asked if there is an opportunity to consider a policy change to allow the 50/50 program to be used for new sidewalks. Mr. Lowder stated he feels it is more important to take care of existing sidewalks with the funding in the 50/50 program and he reiterated it would be more beneficial to use the 50/50 funding for saw-cutting. There was a brief general discussion regarding the potential scope of a saw-cutting program, with Mr. Anderson noting he could coordinate a request for proposal process as long as he knows dedicated funding is available for the program. Council member Gochnour asked if it would be appropriate for the Council to take the lead on creating a policy and a sizeable fund to address sidewalk issues. Mr. Johnson stated he would like for Administration staff to work together with Council staff to develop a proposed program and funding options to bring it to the Council for consideration. Council member Gochnour asked if the Council is interested in considering such a program. A short discussion ensued, with the Council concluding they would consider partnering with the Administration to consider a program. Mr. Anderson then addressed question eight, which asked for an update regarding the Grant Avenue Promenade Project (EN050) as well as an explanation of how the $202,000 will be used. He explained phase one of the project from 20 th to 22nd Street was completed last year; phase two is anticipated to connect from 20th Street north to the river and from 22nd Street south to 25th Street dependent upon funding; it is estimated the design of the four remaining blocks of the project will be $200,000 and the design funding is requested in Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 and includes one Percent for Art, totaling $2,020. Mr. Lowder noted that for a project such as this one, it is easier to secure State and Federal funding if design work is completed. Council member Gochnour asked if $200,000 is enough to complete the design work, to which Mr. Anderson answered yes and noted that the rough concept is already available. Mr. Anderson addressed question nine, which asked staff to review and discuss the 36th Street and Quincy Avenue Signal Replacement project. The signal is in need of a complete replacement; upon investigation and analysis, staff has determined that no components of the signal are salvageable. Council member Wicks stated she thought that money had been dedicated to signal improvements recently. Mr. Anderson stated that is correct and many signal upgrades were done, but all of the money dedicated for those projects would have been consumed by this project. He noted this is one of the two worst signals in the City and the other is funded by another funding source. Mr. Anderson then addressed question ten, which asked for a brief review of the scope of EN067 Skyline Parkway-Quail Run to 4600 South and whether adjacent residents will have access to secondary water as a result of the project. He noted the project will provide much needed secondary access to residents living along the east bench as well as Weber State University (WSU) students and will also decrease traffic on Country Hills Drive by providing alternate travel routes through the area. Application was made and awarded for Weber Area Council of Governments (WACOG) funding and Ogden City has agreed, in principle, with the property owners to install the roadway and install mainline utilities of water (culinary and secondary) and sewer (storm and sanitary) in return for a roadway easement. Culinary water has already been installed and storm sewer is eligible under WACOG funding. A sanitary sewer line and a secondary water line will also need to be installed, as they are not eligible for WACOG funding. The area is within the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District service area and future residents will be able to access secondary water; existing residents already have access to secondary water service. Mr. Anderson reviewed question 11, which asked for a review of EN074 North Street Improvements from Monroe Boulevard to Washington Boulevard. He noted the project provides improvements to North Street, such as road widening, turn lane upgrades (including a right hand turn at Washington Boulevard), the installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk where none currently exist, and improved roadway. North Street is continuing to carry additional traffic each year. The road is currently unable to handle heavy traffic loading, and is missing curb, gutter and sidewalk for the majority of the project. The City has applied to the Wasatch Front Regional Council for Transportation Improvement Project money and to WACOG for funds for this area; partial funding was provided by WACOG with a promise of additional funding in the future. This funding will provide for design and right-of-way acquisition. Chair Hyer asked if the right-of-way width will be increased, to which Mr. Anderson answered yes and noted a signal will be installed at the Monroe Boulevard intersection. Council member Garner asked if there will also be a light installed on North Street near the future fire station to stop traffic during emergencies. Mr. Lowder stated there will be a priority override light at Washington Boulevard that the Fire Department will have control over. He added overall improvements to North Street are very necessary due to demands placed on the infrastructure by recent and future growth. Mr. Anderson reviewed question 12 which asked for a review of project EN077, 20 th Street and Harrison Boulevard Intersection improvements. He noted this project proposes to re-align the intersection of 20th Street and Harrison Boulevard with Valley Drive. Traffic conflicts and congestion in this intersection create safety concerns for motorists as well as pedestrians as the intersection profile is hazardous. The funding requested in the CIP would cover design of the project. Council member Stephens asked if the State of Utah will assist with the project since Harrison Boulevard is a State road. Mr. Anderson stated he does not believe the State will participate because the problem is not actually associated with Harrison Boulevard as much as with 20th Street and Valley Drive, which are both City streets. Mr. Lowder then reviewed question 13, which inquired as to whether Fresenius is expanding its operations in conjunction with the 17th Street reconstruction project. He stated Fresenius is considering expansion, but they are also considering expanding to the north and east; the Community and Economic Development Department has been working to line up crucial properties for the expansion project. He noted, however, that the 17 th Street reconstruction project is needed now because it is failing under current use and traffic levels. Council member Stephens noted the residents in the area covered by the Gibson Community Plan are very concerned about traffic and lack of sidewalks on 17th Street and he asked that they be involved in the project. Mr. Lowder noted that often times reconstructing and improving a road can serve to calm traffic. Council member Gochnour asked if the City is aware of Fresenius’ long range expansion plan. Mr. Lowder stated that question can be better answered by the Community and Economic Development Department, but he noted the Public Services Department is providing the infrastructure to allow for their expansion. Mr. Johnson noted that the City is not totally aware of Fresenius’ expansion plan, but the more the City can create an environment that will accommodate their expansion the more likely they are to continue to grow. Mr. Anderson addressed question 14, which asked staff to review the proposal for the Green Bike Program, how it will be funded, and if it will be a contracted service or a City operated program. He explained a Green Bike Program is meant to link commuters from regional transit to local destinations. It offers a convenient, flexible, and affordable transportation option by connecting major transit stops to a network of Green Bike kiosk rental areas. Green Bike rentals are available to members or anyone with a debit card. Users are not required to return to the same station and may leave the rented bike at any other Green Bike kiosk; this system avoids the time drain of a long walk, taxi ride or the hassle of lugging a bicycle onto a bus or train. Once the Bicycle Master Plan is completed, it is suggested that $30,000 be allocated in the first year for design and infrastructure improvements including additional bike lanes in locations identified by the Bicycle Master Plan. In year two and three, Recreation Arts Museum and Parks (RAMP) major project funding could be considered to match the City’s contribution. Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds could also be pursued. Council member Wicks inquired as to the amount of taxpayer funds that will be dedicated to the Program. Mr. Johnson stated that is yet to be determined and will be based on several different factors. Council member Stephens asked if the Program will be part of the City’s Bike Master Plan. Mr. Anderson answered yes and noted that the firm working to prepare the Bike Master Plan has been tasked to identify areas that would best accommodate the implementation of a Green Bike Program. He noted there is a heavy focus on connecting Ogden’s Green Bike Program with the same program in Salt Lake City to provide more continuity to users. Mr. Lowder then addressed question 17 regarding PY006, Repair Asphalt on the River Parkway, which asked if the City is getting funds from the Dinosaur Park Foundation for the trails around Dinosaur Park and if there is funding for other areas of the River Parkway. He noted the funding requested for the project will be used to fund repairs along the entire length of the Parkway, not just around the Dinosaur Park, and his plans are to continue to use that same practice in the future. He stated there are no current plans to widen the path and there are actually locations along the Parkway that could not be widened without acquiring private property. Council member Gochnour stated she regularly receives requests that the trail be widened; there are times that the trail is very busy and it is difficult for bikers to pass runners or runners to pass walkers, especially on the east end of the system. Mr. Lowder addressed question 18 regarding GF032, Irrigation System Replacement at Mt. Ogden Golf Course; the question was whether there would be any savings if the system were replaced all at once. He stated there would definitely be savings if the project was done on a larger scale, but the project is so large and would be so expensive that staff has chosen to complete it in smaller phases. Mr. Lowder then addressed question 19, which asked what land acquisition is contemplated under the GC027 Trail Development project. He noted the project was created to provide funding for trail development projects as they evolved, but currently there are easement acquisition needs in the Burch Creek and Hidden Valley Trail areas. He added the number one priority at this time is also acquisition of easements for the connector trail from the lower Ogden Parkway Trail to Business Depot Ogden. Mr. Lowder addressed question 20 regarding Country Hills Drive (Beus Curve). He stated that just because the public uses the area, the City should not create a trail or walking corridor and invite more usage; this is a high speed area and the hill has failed before. If the City were to provide pedestrian access and walkways in the area, they would need to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and that would mean the City would need to cut into an already unstable hill and make it more unstable. Council member Gochnour stated she receives so many requests from people about this area and she asked if there is anything that can be done short of cutting into the hillside to provide pedestrian access. She wondered if the lanes could be narrowed or if foliage could be trimmed to provide for better access. Mr. Lowder stated any improvements done by the City would need to be sufficient to provide total safety to the pedestrians otherwise the City’s liability will be increased by building something substandard. General discussion regarding the makeup of the area ensued, with Council member Gochnour asking if it is possible to identify an alternative pedestrian route in the area. Mr. Anderson noted the future connection of Skyline Drive will provide an alternate route to pedestrians in the area. He provided a brief history of the infrastructure issues in the area, reiterating Mr. Lowder’s statement that cutting into the hillside will further destabilize it; it is an area that has already experienced many different landslides. Mr. Johnson stated Administration will continue to look for other pedestrian alternatives in the area. Council member Gochnour stated she understands the Administration’s position, but she is concerned a pedestrian will be killed in the area due to the current conditions. Chair Hyer welcomed the following Boy Scouts present from Troop #247, who were working on their Citizenship in the Community Merit Badge: Bryce Maddock, Boston Gunvalson, and Alfredo Perez. The Scouts were brought to the meeting by their leader, Jeff Maddock. The Council then took a break at 7:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:11 p.m. Public Utility Manager Moffett addressed question 21, which asked for a review of the project WU069, Remove Meter Reading Towers. The question asked for an explanation of the purpose of the towers and to identify the towers that will be replaced; also asked was if the project will proceed without 100 percent of the meters being replaced with automated reading units. He provided a high level overview of the remote meter reading system, noting that it is anticipated that the entire City can be serviced by 46 towers. Vice Chair White inquired as to the amount of time it currently takes to read all meters in the City. Mr. Moffett stated it takes three work weeks out of each month to read meters. Council member Stephens asked for an update on the equal pay program to be implemented in the Public Utility Division. Mr. Moffett stated he anticipates it will be made available to the public at the end of March. He then noted 75 percent of the City will be able to utilize the remote read service and the other 25 percent of customers still use an old meter; he is hopeful that it will be possible to reach 100 percent in the next couple of years depending upon funding. He added he is seeking a WaterSMART Grant for the project and if funding is awarded it will supplement the CIP project funding. There was a brief discussion regarding the City’s current budget to employ meter readers and whether that cost will be eliminated when the entire City has remote read meters, with Mr. Moffett noting that it will be necessary to continue to employ some meter readers or reassign them to different positions, but there may be opportunities to reduce some operational costs. Ms. Eller-Smith added that there will be an action item listed on the Council’s meeting agenda for February 10, 2015 to allow them to consider approval of the WaterSMART Grant application. Vice Chair Gochnour stated she is pleased that the City’s meter reading system is being updated and improved using available technology. Mr. Lowder agreed and stated that it will definitely provide greater service to the residents of the City. Information Technology Operation Manager Lefgren addressed question 23, which asked for a review of project IT002, Fiber Infrastructure Replacement project and if the project was addressed in the Information Technology Study. He played a brief video regarding the capabilities of fiber optics infrastructure. He stated the project was not specifically addressed in the IT study, but there was a heavy focus on disaster recovery and fiber optics would actually provide redundancy within the City’s IT Infrastructure to improve disaster recovery capabilities. He added the City has been on a privately operated optical fiber network since 1998. Currently, all fiber strands are in use, thus limiting expansion and bandwidth. The current optical fiber network connects the Public Safety Building, Public Works Building and Municipal Building to the City’s LAN (local area network) and provides a 10 Gigabit Ethernet connection. Current fiber offers no redundancy between buildings. This project is to replace and/or increase the fiber count to all City infrastructure using our own fiber, a partnership with Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and other ISP to decrease cost of the City's infrastructure. Ms. Eller-Smith asked if the partnership will be in the form of using UDOT’s existing conduit. Mr. Lefgren stated that is one option, but there also may be instances where UDOT has a fiber with 128 strands and only 12 to 24 may be in use; they are willing to provide the City with a couple of strands of fiber to provide connectivity. There was a general discussion regarding things that can be done to increase the lifetime of fiber, after which Mr. Lefgren reviewed a map to identify the proposed locations of fiber projects. Mr. Cook asked if continually increasing the City’s fiber infrastructure will provide opportunities to offer internet service to residents in the City. Mr. Lefgren stated he would not recommend moving in that direction because fiber infrastructure is very expensive. He noted there are many private service providers in the City that are currently able to meet the City’s needs. There was a brief discussion regarding the future of internet service infrastructure. Management Services Director Buxton reviewed question 22, which asked for a review of the projects that will be covered by the funds requested under project FL007, General Facilities Improvements. He reported funding will cover a new lighting control system and control system upgrades in the Municipal Building. He addressed question 24 regarding project US035, Union Station Renovation, which asked for an update regarding the plans for the renovation of Union Station and if steps are being taken to protect the building during the current interim period. He stated that Council leadership was recently involved in a meeting facilitated by a mediator working to coordinate the direction of the Union Station Foundation and the City; there were many decisions made during that meeting, but the Union Station Foundation met at a later date and altered the direction again (Director Cook corrected him, stating that no Council representatives were involved in that meeting.) He stated at this point a contract has been executed with an architectural firm to create a program and schematics for the Union Station, but in order to continue past the point of creating those things funding is needed. The Union Station Foundation will use the schematic to engage in fundraising efforts. There will be a public meeting Thursday where the architects will take feedback from the public regarding the uses they would like to see at the Union Station and the architects will then meet again with the Foundation and the City to determine how to proceed with making the building self-sustaining and successful. A capital campaign will then be under way and there is a request for $100,000 from the legislature to serve to bridge the gap until the capital campaign goals are met. Council member Wicks stated that she has been told that the Foundation has refused to book events at the Union Station at the end of the summer of 2015 because the renovation project will be underway. Mr. Buxton stated the Foundation has been corrected and they now understand that the project will likely not be underway this summer. He stated there will be an analysis of how to close portions of the building while leaving others open for business during the renovation project. Council member Gochnour asked if there are any efforts to secure operations and maintenance money from the State. Mr. Buxton stated that is the $100,000 he referenced from the State legislature and he noted it will cover the power bill at the Union Station. Council member Gochnour asked if that will be ongoing funding. Mr. Buxton answered ongoing funding has been requested. General discussion regarding the history of the lease of the Union Station to the Foundation ensued, with a continued focus on alternative funding sources that may be available to assist the Foundation in maintaining the facility. Mr. Cook clarified that Council leadership was not involved in the mediation meeting referenced by Mr. Buxton. Discussion continued regarding the relationship between the City and the Foundation, with Council member Stephens noting the Union Station is a vital part of Ogden and that all citizens of Ogden will likely support the capital campaign for the project. Ms. Eller-Smith concluded there will be another work session next week to allow for additional discussion regarding any changes the Council would like to see in the CIP. General fund projects can also be ranked and the ranking forwarded to Administration for their consideration. Council Business Council Calendar: Mr. Cook and other members of Council staff briefly reviewed the City Council calendar for the next several weeks. 2014 Year in Review: Council Communications Manager Mabey used the aid of a PowerPoint presentation to provide a highlight of the events and accomplishments of the Council during 2014. Lantern House Project: The Council had a brief general discussion regarding the progress of the Lantern House project. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.  ________________________________________ ABBIE ZAMPEDRI DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ RICHARD A. HYER, CHAIR APPROVED: April 7, 2015