City Council

Minutes of Work Session of Council of Ogden City, Utah, March 3, 2015 Page Minutes of the Work Session of the Ogden City Council held on Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 5:32 p.m., in the Council Chambers 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 Neil K. Garner Caitlin K. Gochnour (arrived at 5:42 p.m.) Doug Stephens Amy L. Wicks (arrived at 5:34 p.m.) Council Executive Director Bill Cook Council Deputy Director Janene Eller-Smith Council Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Communications Specialist Brittany Griffin Also present: Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Assistant City Attorney Mark Stratford Community and Economic Development Director Tom Christopulos Deputy City Recorder Abbie Zampedri The purpose of the Work Session was to observe the Weber State University Debate Team debate the topic of vacation rentals, to receive an update from the Utah Transit Authority on the Transit Study, and to discuss Council business. Observe Weber State University Debate Team debate the topic of vacation rentals Dr. Omar Guevara, Director of Forensics at Weber State University (WSU) in the Department of Communication, introduced himself and the debaters that are present to debate the topic of short term vacation rental properties; on the affirmative side of the issue of substantially regulating short-term rental properties is Catherine Shackleford who will be coached by WSU Debate Assistant Coach, Blake Marsh. On the negative side of the issue is Bianca Morales who will be coached by WSU Debate Assistant Coach Lindsay Van Luvanee. The Lincoln Douglas debate format, which is a one-on-one debate format, will be used this evening. Mr. Guevara commenced the debate, which was observed by the City Council, staff, and other visitors in attendance during the meeting. At the conclusion of the debate Mr. Guevara offered each debater the opportunity to provide their closing rebuttals. He noted that typically at the end of a debate, the debater will receive a post-round criticism from their judge, but in this setting he would prefer to forego the declaration of a winner and loser and, instead, let the audience form their own opinion. The team found this research project so interesting because the issue has been debated recently in major cities throughout the United States. He invited the Council to address questions to the two debaters regarding the research they conducted. Vice Chair White asked if owners of vacation rental properties are able to secure insurance policies that would provide protection against events that could occur while a vacationer is occupying the property. Ms. Shackleford stated an entity called Air B&B has an insurance policy that would compensate property owners for damages that occur while a vacationer is occupying their property, but there have been complaints regarding the fact that Air B&B is very slow to respond. Council member Wicks noted she thinks homeowners insurance companies will likely respond to this issue in the future because vacation rental properties are on trend right now and basic homeowner’s policies do not offer protection to property owners. Chair Hyer noted that the City is aware that some residents are currently using their properties as vacation rentals; he asked the debaters’ opinions regarding where vacation rentals may or may not be appropriate. Ms. Shackleford stated that zoning could be used to regulate vacation rentals and ensure that such properties are grouped closely together. Areas near tourist attractions would be most appropriate for vacation rentals. Mr. Guevara stated that in New Orleans there are efforts underway to regulate the vacation rental industry neighborhood by neighborhood. Chair Hyer asked if it would make a difference if the property owners were present at the time of the vacation rental. Ms. Shackleford answered it would make a difference in reducing problems associated with vacation rentals if the property owner is present and able to monitor the activities occurring. Ms. Morales added that some people only rent their home to vacationers when they themselves are on vacation. Chair Hyer noted that Ms. Shackleford recommended conducting background checks on vacationers and he inquired as to who would conduct those checks. Ms. Shackleford stated that the responsibility for background checks is placed on the property owner and possibly the client. Council member Garner inquired as to how the value of revenue associated with vacation rentals for cities has been tracked and captured. Ms. Shackleford stated that the data has not been tracked very well and it is up to property owners to report their earnings. She referenced data provided by New York City, after which Mr. Guevara added that New York City has indicated that two-thirds to three-quarters of their short term rentals are in violation of their criminal ordinance. Council member Stephens asked how Park City regulates vacation rentals. Ms. Shackleford stated that vacation rentals are actually prohibited in Park City as well, but enforcement is done on a local level and they use software to cross reference databases that would have information about vacation rentals in their city that would be in violation of their ordinances. Mr. Guevara clarified Park City uses proprietary software available to small to mid-size intermountain vacation towns. Council member Stephens asked if any other city in Utah is regulating vacation rentals. Ms. Morales indicated Moab is developing regulations for vacation rental properties. Vice Chair White asked how cities that permit vacation rentals have addressed licensing of such properties. Ms. Morales stated that some cities require various inspections and applications and the fees for a license can be very high; Denver, Colorado intentionally tried to simplify their application process and they use a registry that vacation rental property owners are encouraged to use to provide certain data regarding their properties. Council member Gochnour stated there are different types of vacation rental properties; some property owners rent a couch in their home, some rent a room in their home, or some rent their entire home and she asked which is preferred. Ms. Morales stated that a vacant house would likely be preferred by vacationers. Ms. Shackleford agreed and noted that if the home owner is not readily available, it would be wise for them to hire an agent that could respond to an emergency at the property if necessary. Council member Stephens asked the debaters if they would recommend parking regulations that would go hand in hand with vacation rental regulations. Ms. Shackleford answered yes and noted other cities that permit vacation rentals have also implemented parking regulations. Council member Blair stated that in many resort cities or towns people purchase homes as vacation homes with the intent of renting it to other vacationers when they are not using it. He stated Ogden may be somewhat different because vacation rentals may be someone’s primary home and he wondered if there was a difference between the two types of vacation rental properties. Ms. Shackleford stated that the rental properties in resort cities would likely be in the long term rental category; Ogden properties would likely be classified as short-term rentals, with a rental period of less than 30-days. Council member Garner inquired as to the difference between the average number of nights stayed by a vacationer when comparing vacation rental properties to hotels. Ms. Morales stated when paying for a hotel, travelers spend four nights on average, but with access to a vacation rental property travelers spend six nights on average. Council member Wicks noted that Ms. Shackleford mentioned that people do not use the Vacation Rental By Owner (VRBO) website when looking for a vacation rental property. Ms. Shackleford stated that fewer people use that website than other popular short term rental websites. Council member Wicks stated she has used VRBO almost exclusively and in every instance she has paid a local lodging tax and has dealt directly with the property owner. Mr. Guevara stated there is some competition among short term rental websites and VRBO has accused Air B&B of not exercising due diligence in collecting appropriate taxes. He noted, however, that Air B&B is the industry leader. General discussion regarding the differences between the two websites ensued, with Council member Wick noting that VRBO has more rental listings than any other website she found. Council member Garner stated he has heard of situations where short term rental property owners have had difficulty in getting travelers to leave at the end of their rental period. The debaters indicated they did not come across that situation in their research. The Council and debaters then had a general discussion about prohibition measures and the manner in which property owners could offer their property for rental even though the act would essentially be illegal. Vice Chair White inquired as to vacation rental problems associated with subleases. Ms. Morales stated that there have been instances where a tenant of a home or apartment goes on vacation and offers the property for short term rental without informing the landowner. Council member Wicks stated she assumed that would be a violation of the lease. Council member Stephens asked if it is necessary to enact regulations for vacation rental properties that would essentially ‘level the playing field’ between vacation rentals and hotels. Ms. Shackleford stated it may be possible to impose taxes or other fees on vacation rental properties to eliminate any unfair advantage the vacation rental may otherwise have, but she noted that she feels there will always be a market for both vacation rentals and hotels. Ms. Morales stated vacation rentals may be somewhat threatening to hotels, but noted there will always be travelers that will opt for a hotel because they are uncomfortable staying in another person’s home. Chair Hyer provided a synopsis of the process the Planning Commission and City Council will follow to address the issue of vacation rental properties in Ogden. Council Executive Director Cook noted that there will be opportunities for public input on the issue throughout the process. He thanked the WSU Debate Team for their hard work in researching and debating the topic. The meeting recessed at 6:37 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 6:49 p.m. in the Council Work Room. Update from the Utah Transit Authority regarding the Transit Study Mr. Cook introduced Utah Transit Authority (UTA) representatives Jim McNulty and Hal Johnson and indicated they were present to provide the Council with an update regarding the UTA Transit Study. Mr. Johnson noted there has been a recent focus on public involvement in the Transit Study and the study is at a critical point during which the technical information is being considered before a new stream of data will be available via public input. He asked the Council to be prepared to make a difficult decision in the next couple of months regarding transportation mode and alignments based on technical recommendations and relevant data. Mr. McNulty used the aid of a PowerPoint presentation to review the status of the transit study. He provided a brief background regarding the need for the study as he identified the study area. Two potential transportation modes have been identified: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Streetcar. Viable routes for each of the transit options have been identified as well. He reviewed a map of the recommended route alternatives, highlighting the routes on 25 th and 30th Streets. There are different mixed flow traffic options as well as exclusive transit options associated with both BRT and the Streetcar options, but there are some areas of the City where exclusive transit lanes are not an option. He added that WSU has indicated they will not allow the BRT system on campus; they would be accepting of an exclusive Streetcar lane on campus. Council member Stephens inquired as to why WSU was opposed to the BRT system. Mr. Johnson stated that WSU leadership feels that the Streetcar system has higher ridership, which creates a bigger justification for dedicating land to the transit option. Chair Hyer stated it is his understanding that the routes and number of cars used in any transit system would be in place to meet the demand; he does not understand why ridership would be lower on BRT than it would for a Streetcar system. Mr. McNulty stated that rail modes have a higher level of attractiveness to customers; it also attracts people that are unfamiliar with transit and they are much more willing to use rail transit than bus transit. Modeling indicates that ridership on the Streetcar rail mode option would be approximately one-third higher than BRT, but the costs for rail options are also higher than BRT. There was a brief discussion regarding the route the BRT system would follow due to the fact that WSU will not dedicate a right-of-way on campus for BRT, after which Mr. McNulty reviewed four maps identifying the four route alternatives that will be used to gather public input from the several stakeholder groups in the area. Vice Chair White asked if there have been discussions regarding the difference in cost between BRT and Streetcar when polling potential users regarding their transit preference. Mr. McNulty stated during the next step in the process there will be a focus on costs of both of the transit options as well as the benefits to potentially be provided by each option. He then reviewed the evaluation process used in the study, noting there are eight criteria’s that reflect the project goals and objectives and reflect the Small Starts rating criteria for federal funding eligibility: 1. Ridership 2. Ridership by zero-car households 3. Reduction in vehicle miles traveled 4. Capital Cost 5. Annual Operations and Maintenance Cost 6. Cost Effectiveness (Annualized Federal Share divided by Annual Trips) 7. Land Use and Economic Development Impact 8. Local Support He briefly reviewed a chart summarizing the evaluation of the transit study alternatives, noting that cost estimates for the construction as well as operation and maintenance of each system are included in the chart. This data will be discussed in more depth during future meetings. The capital cost ratio for the Streetcar and BRT systems is approximately three to one. There was a brief discussion regarding funding opportunities for both transit options, with Mr. Johnson noting that there is a heavy focus on providing the most benefit for the community as it exists when considering whether a project is eligible for federal funding. Chair Hyer inquired as to the percentage of operation and maintenance costs that are covered by fares. Mr. Johnson stated fare revenues typically cover 20 percent of the operation and maintenance costs for either transit mode. There was a discussion about incorporating a bike system into the transit system, after which Mr. McNulty provided the land use assessment for the transit alternatives, noting there is a focus on enacting land use policies that will support a transit corridor; this includes affordable housing options. He reviewed the current residential density in the sections of the City that are located in close proximity to the transit alternatives; density is higher surrounding 25 th Street and Harrison Boulevard south of 30th Street. There are also student apartments around Harrison Boulevard and south of 30 th Street, with some legacy apartments and larger single- family homes have been converted to multi-unit properties. He summarized the public involvement process to date and noted there is much support for the transit system among surrounding communities. He concluded the next step is to provide updates to the following groups and gain consensus on alternatives to be studied:  WACOG  Ogden City Council  Ogden Rotary Club  Ogden Bicycle Council  Weber County Chamber  Weber County Active Transportation  25th Street Owners Association   Junction Association  Landmarks Commission  Convention & Visitors Bureau  Weber State students/faculty  LUPEC Board  Other interested groups/parties Mr. Johnson noted that he is also working with a student group that is studying the alignment and transit options and asked that the Council be open to hearing a presentation from that group in April or May. Council member Stephens stated he is gratified by the fact that the project could be one that will benefit the entire region rather than just Ogden City. Mr. Johnson agreed and noted there has been a lot of synergy around the project. Discussion regarding the format of public involvement meetings ensued; Mr. McNulty and Mr. Johnson provided information about some of the dialogue that has taken place at public involvement meetings to date, noting available public outreach meeting conclusions have been provided to the City. Mr. McNulty added that his group is working closely with City staff as well as the consultant that has been hired to develop the City’s bicycle master plan to ensure proper interface. Mr. Johnson added that the study is on schedule and Mr. McNulty is doing a good job of managing the day to day activities associated with the study. Council member Garner inquired as to the next step in the process following the meetings with stakeholder groups. Mr. McNulty stated input will be gathered from the public meetings to develop screening criteria that will then be presented to the City Council; he is hopeful at that point it will be possible to select a transit option and route to take deeper into the study process. Mr. Cook added the Mayor will be involved in that step of the study. Council member Stephens inquired as to the construction timeline once a project has been identified. Mr. McNulty stated environmental work could take up to one year with actual construction work taking two construction seasons. A transit system could come on line in as little as four years. Construction of the project is also dependent upon the availability of funding. Council member Gochnour asked if unanimous approval of a project is required or if the successful project must simply gain consensus. Mr. McNulty stated that the City Council and Mayor are the critical decision makers relative to the transit mode and alignment, but the decision need not be unanimous. There was a brief discussion regarding funding opportunities for the project, with Mr. Johnson noting that representatives of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have indicated the project is very desirable and should have access to FTA funding sources. He concluded it is very valuable that the process to develop the study has been and continues to be very transparent. Council Business Arts Grants: Council Policy Analyst Symes stated the Administration’s Arts Grants proposal was provided during the last work session meeting and Council staff is seeking feedback relative to alternative proposals or how to proceed with taking action on the Administration’s proposal. He noted the Imagine Ballet Theater, the Egyptian Theater Foundation, and the Utah Film Center were the three entities whose applications the Council took issue with during the last meeting. The Council engaged in a brief debate and discussion regarding the applications provided by each of the three entities; there was a focus on the funding opportunities that should be available to for-profit entities compared to non-profit entities. Mr. Symes provided a brief history of the grant amounts that have been provided to Imagine Ballet Theater over the past three years. The Council ultimately concluded to award $1,000 to Imagine Ballet Theater and to redistribute the other $1,400 to other entities that sought funding. They also concluded not to support the Sarod Project at the Egyptian Theater. Mr. Cook noted that in a discussion with the City’s Legal staff, they indicated it would be appropriate for the Council to provide justification for amending the Administration’s funding proposal and he asked that the Council articulate that justification. Council member Gochnour stated she does not feel that the entity belongs in the ‘general’ grant category as the other entities included in that category are non-profit. Council member Garner agreed and noted that it may be more appropriate to apply for grant funding for a specific project. Vice Chair White disagreed and noted that she feels that funding should be awarded to entities and they should be trusted to appropriate it correctly. She feels the Council is getting too involved in the details of the granting process. Council member Wicks noted that in order to be included in the ‘general’ category the entity should be open on a daily basis and provide a broad range of activities for the community. Council member Garner agreed. The Council had a brief discussion regarding their reasons for not supporting the Sarod Project at the Egyptian Theater, ultimately concluding that $10 per ticket is too high of a ticket price. Council member Wicks recommended that the ticket price be reduced by at least half. The Council concluded their discussion by indicating it is necessary to amend the ordinance that provides grading criteria for Arts Grants applications prior to next year’s Arts Grants application process. The meeting adjourned at 7:53 p.m. ________________________________________  ABBIE ZAMPEDRI DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ RICHARD A. HYER, CHAIR APPROVED: April 7, 2015