City Council

Minutes of Work Session of Council of Ogden City, Utah, March 31, 2015 Page Minutes of the Work Session of the Ogden City Council held on Tuesday, March 31, 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 (participated via telephone) Council members Bart E. Blair Neil K. Garner (arrived at 5:37 p.m.) Caitlin K. Gochnour (arrived at 5:33 p.m.) Doug Stephens Amy L. Wicks (arrived at 5:37 p.m.) Council Executive Director Bill Cook Council Deputy Director Janene Eller-Smith Council Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Communications Manager Amy Sue Mabey Also present: Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Community and Economic Development Director Tom Christopulos Deputy Community and Economic Development Manager Brandon Cooper Community Development Manager Ward Ogden Grant Administrator Cathy Fuentes Project Coordinator Jeremy Smith Public Services Director Jay Lowder Senior Analyst Camille Cook Deputy City Recorder Abbie Zampedri The purpose of the Work Session was to discuss Quality Neighborhoods and Council Business. Quality Neighborhoods Deputy Director Policy Analyst Eller-Smith explained the Community and Economic Development Department will present a revised approach to revitalizing Ogden’s East Central neighborhoods which consists of a comprehensive, targeted approach to addressing the core issues by 1) reducing the concentration of low-income/sub-standard housing in the area, 2) increasing the standards of care for residential units, 3) increasing owner-occupancy rates, and 4) increasing property values. She also reviewed the history of the development of the Quality Neighborhoods Program and noted that there are several projects included in the Administration’s proposed Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Plan that relate to the Quality Neighborhoods Program. Community and Economic Development Director Christopulos briefly reviewed the history of the development of the Quality Neighborhoods program, noting Staff hosted a tour for the City Council to witness the condition of various neighborhoods throughout the City. After the tour, staff identified an area that needed more attention from the City in order to facilitate revitalization and improvement. He used the aid of a PowerPoint presentation to provide an overview of the components of the Quality Neighborhoods program and reviewed the combined vision for the program, which includes the following points of emphasis:  Improving Business & Economic Development Opportunities  Improving Quality of Life / Community Development - creating a place where people wish to live  Emphasis on Outdoor Recreation  Transit System Development  Improve Educational Opportunities  Foundation built on Ogden’s Rich History, Architecture, and Heritage He then summarized the key components of a quality neighborhood:  Variety: commercial/ residential/ mixed-use/usable open space  Accommodates multi-modal transportation: pedestrians/ bicycles/ drivers   Visually interesting: site design and architectural features/ preserve historic elements/ diverse population  Encourages human contact and social activities: open space, public space, community connection points  A secure environment: community involvement/ decent, affordable housing/ leads to reduced crime  Promotes Sustainability: adaptability/ longevity/ strong and developing tax base / quality educational opportunities He noted impediments to a quality neighborhood that are present in the East Central neighborhood include blight, poverty, “packing”, a concentration of social problems, and social imbalances. Over 73 percent of the East Central neighborhood is blighted. Poverty in the City has doubled in each of the past decades, but the majority of the poverty is located in a few neighborhoods, including the East Central neighborhood. So much blight and poverty has been concentrated into the East Central neighborhood that it has led to imbalance. Staff are striving to create a balanced community. Mr. Christopulos narrowed the focus on each of the impediments, beginning with blight:  Too many low and moderate income households are living in substandard conditions or overpaying for housing.  Low levels of maintenance on exterior of properties due to lack of ownership.  Substandard multi-family conversions of once majestic homes (causing life safety issues).  Low levels of yard maintenance.  Poorly maintained architectural elements.  Imprudent policies of past local and state authorities. Chair Hyer referenced the fact that many homes in the East Central neighborhood are rental homes rather than owner occupied homes; he inquired as to the ratio of the City’s rental properties that are located in the East Central neighborhood. Community and Economic Development Deputy Manager Cooper stated that of the 32,877 rental properties in the City, 8,321 are located within the East Central neighborhood. Mr. Christopulos then reviewed a chart illustrating the impact that blight has on median home value based on per capita income. Council member Stephens asked if there is a direct connection between blight, home values, and the age of a home. Mr. Christopulos noted there is not necessarily a connection between age of a home and its value; many older homes that are properly maintained and located within a thriving neighborhood actually experience an increased in property value. He added dis- investment leads to reduced property values and blight. Council member Stephens asked if it is necessary to reduce the number of rental properties in the East Central neighborhood to promote investment. Mr. Christopulos responded there are many rental property owners that are willing to invest in rental homes, but there are some investors that only invest during a down market; they purchase substandard housing for a low purchase price and they do not invest in the property because they are able to secure tenants without making improvements. Community Development Manager Ogden offered examples of other neighborhoods throughout the City where disinvestment has occurred. He noted Ogden City has assumed ownership of properties that were formerly used as rental properties and it is much more costly to rehabilitate those homes than it would have been for the previous owner to keep up on preventative maintenance. Mr. Christopulos then focused on the poverty impediment present in the East Central neighborhood:  The workforce is poorly aligned with a high quality, modern employment need, so poverty is perpetuated.  Children in poverty generally lack the necessary resources required for educational attainment (reading material, tutors, etc.).  Poverty is “packed” or concentrated in a single school district/area contributing to the burden and underperformance of certain schools.  Lack of discretionary income needed to support commercial and retail development in the local trade area. Mr. Ogden added that statistics show that 34 percent of the downtown neighborhood’s population is in poverty, with 75 percent of that same area determined to be low or moderate income households. Mr. Christopulos briefly focused on education levels of Ogden residents compared to residents state-wide, noting there is a connection between poverty, education level, and home ownership. He focused on the imbalance impediment present in the East Central neighborhood:  Weber County’s affordable housing stock is being disproportionately placed on the shoulders of Ogden City in general and specifically on the neighborhoods of East Central.  Ogden has largely been bypassed by the growth in Utah in past years, as investments north of Salt Lake City have become increasingly characterized by suburban, low-density, auto-oriented sprawl.  A sizeable portion of the affordable housing needs of low-income people in Ogden are being met by on-going disinvestment in the East Central neighborhoods. The result is an effective rendering of large sections of East Central into a concentration of the region’s least stable households on one hand and the struggling immigrant households on the other.  Rate of subsidized vs. market housing is disproportionate. Mr. Christopulos reviewed a pie chart illustrating the number of Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) subsidized properties located in Ogden City compared to the number of similar units in Roy and Washington Terrace. Of the total 872 units among the three cities, 774 are located in Ogden while Roy and Washington Terrace have 64 and 34, respectively. Mr. Ogden noted that equates to 81 percent of HUD subsidized units in all of Weber County being located in Ogden City. He added 60 percent of all Weber County renters live in Ogden City, even though 39 percent of all housing units in Weber County are located in Ogden. Mr. Christopulos added that the City has an excess of low to moderate income housing units when compared to all other cities in Weber County. This led to a discussion regarding the definition of low to moderate income housing, with a focus on the ratio of that type of housing compared to the City’s population. Mr. Christopulos focused on the outcome generated by the impediments present in the East Central neighborhood as follows:  Generally has a weak image as a neighborhood of choice because of the conditions outlined.  Has a soft real estate market that can no longer compete for most households that can afford alternative sites (reduced or no appreciation)  Lacks the social cohesion needed to deal with economic shifts.  Continues to be under-maintained in terms of both private and public spaces.  Continues to be outcompeted by the suburban paradigm. Mr. Cooper stated that these components are heavily considered by retailers and other commercial entities that may be considering locating in Ogden City. Mr. Christopulos agreed and added the neighborhoods between Harrison Boulevard and Washington Boulevard are regarded as “downtown neighborhoods” and thus are linked in people’s minds to the condition of downtown. The downtown is the heart of the City. He focused on the current resources available to the City to deal with the conditions present in the East Central neighborhood as follows:  Neighborhood Improvements, such as code enforcement and public improvement coordination  Infill Housing - new construction and private development coordination  Housing Rehabilitation, such as rental rehab; emergency home repairs; unit reduction; the Home Exterior Loan Program program (HELP); volunteer rehab; non-profit rehab; and the Asset Control Area (ACA) program.  Home Buyer Assistance, such as the Own-in-Ogden program and home buyer education  Tax Credits - historical/ State/ federal / tax increment financing (TIF) The challenges associating with the use of current resources include:  Recovery cannot happen until confidence in the value of property is re-established. o The majority of current resources are funded by HUD and generally focus on subsidy instead of enhancement. o Income restrictions exacerbate the imbalance problem. o Private investment is disinterested in current market conditions.  Every action should be tested by the question: “Does this project or program support confidence in the neighborhood?” o East Central is best served by adopting an investment orientation instead of a subsidy orientation. o To low-income households, the affordability of the housing stock is a plus. However, the wider market views too much affordable housing as an indicator of problems that suppress demand, rather than an opportunity to buy low. Mr. Christopulos reviewed barriers to success of a neighborhood:  Lack of Equity: historical sources (federal funds) are insufficient and dwindling.  Misaligned Ordinances: confusing and oftentimes contradictory.  Not enough education/enforcement resources.  Inefficient Resources: confusing stigma regarding the beneficial use of municipal authority. City resources must increase on a per unit basis to cover services and increase property value.  Distractions: extreme pressure on all sides for precious dollars and resources. Expenses will not generate revenue.  Velocity/Amplitude: change too slow and isolated to be noticed. He then summarized potential City Council policy considerations: 1. Velocity--To what extent does Ogden City want to accelerate the transformation of East Central? 2. Amplitude--To what degree is Ogden City committed to focusing scarce resources on problem areas in order to increase the visibility of change in East Central? 3. Level of Responsibility--To what extent does Ogden City wish to continue to effectively be the sole provider of affordable housing for low-income households in Weber County? Chair Hyer asked if there are places for people when they are displaced if the City chooses to eliminate a large chunk of the affordable housing available in Ogden. Mr. Christopulos answered 90 percent of the low income housing stock is currently vacant and the most appropriate starting point is to eliminate those low-income housing units. He added there are opportunities to provide better housing options for those that would be displaced by the elimination of low-income housing units. He clarified that staff is not proposing demolishing 4,000 low-income housing units at one time; rather, this is a transitional plan that will span a number of years. He noted the current housing improvement efforts underway at this time in the City will simply be accelerated to create more balanced communities and promote investment. Mr. Cooper cited the Dee School housing project as an example of the type of transition that could take place in the East Central neighborhood. He noted that of the total 33 units that required relocation in the Dee School project area, 18 were successfully relocated to improved housing units. This is a very successful case study that can be used to understand staff’s plan for addressing the East Central neighborhood. Council member Wicks stated she feels the key to creating successful neighborhoods is improving the quality of affordable housing throughout the City. Council member Garner agreed and suggested it would be valuable to enlist private developers in those efforts by asking them to create a certain number of affordable housing units within large residential developments. Mr. Christopulos also agreed, but added it has been difficult to enlist the private sector because they do not realize a profit for the affordable units they include in their projects. Mr. Cooper noted that the East Central neighborhood has been selected by Staff because it is the area of the City with the most need that can also create the highest economic development benefit for the City. Mr. Christopulos agreed, after which he summarized the intervention objectives. He noted East Central neighborhoods cannot be revitalized without “unpacking” the present concentration of low-income households. All intervention goals are intended to:  Reduce the real number of the households in poverty and reduce numbers/percentages of low-income households in East Central.  Attract private investment that results in an increase of property values.  Increase the standards of care for homes and apartments in the East Central.  Increase owner-occupancy rate to state average through net renter reduction and adding single-family construction. He noted the first intervention concept is “targeting” through:  Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Restructuring: closing of old, creation of new and the creation of a larger area with offset triggers  “Declared Intent”: use of municipal authority and open negotiations with property owners  Build on Bright Spots: corridor and gateway strategies with areas of greatest appeal for strong buyers and removal of “feeders”  Impediment Reduction: remove deeply embedded impediments that restrict additional investment The Council engaged in a conversation regarding the City’s authority to declare intent to exercise eminent domain if necessary, with Mr. Christopulos stating that eminent domain is a last resort when working on projects of this magnitude, but it is a valuable tool for Staff to have when working with property owners and discussing relocation efforts. He noted that eminent domain was a tool available to Staff when working to relocate residents in the Dee School project area, but it was never necessary to use the tool because all relocation negotiations were successful. Mr. Ogden agreed and noted that only five property owners in the Dee School project area used the services of the State Property Rights Ombudsman for a second appraisal of their property; everyone was treated fairly and understood they had the ability to participate in the appraisal process and negotiation of their sales agreement. Council member Wicks stated that eminent domain has been used negatively in the City in the past and that is the only reason she would be hesitant to use the tool. Mr. Cooper stated he feels that the success of the Dee School project is proof that staff has overcome some of the negative situations that occurred in the past. Mr. Christopulos added that most property owners are willing to work with the City and it is never necessary to discuss eminent domain, but there are some transient property owners that would rather disrupt a project by refusing to negotiate on the sale of their property and in those instances it is necessary to declare the intent or opportunity to use eminent domain. He stated he does not feel it is fair for one or two people to dictate the value of an entire neighborhood. He summarized the second intervention concept of “resource development”:  Ordinance Support: substandard building; vacant building; demo by neglect; dangerous building; good landlord; land banking; receivership; and nuisance abatement  Funding Support: Business Depot Ogden (BDO) lease revenue appropriation; State funding; expansion of programs; private and non-governmental funding  Infrastructure Alignment: public park study; public lighting; proper design and maintenance of public spaces; coordination of street projects Mr. Christopulos focused on the funding support bullet, noting staff is requesting dedicated resources from BDO for the East Central revitalization project; they are seeking an ordinance that would provide $1 million per year for five years to be utilized to complete significant projects to increase the amplitude and enhance the velocity of the project. He added there is an additional request for $200,000 per year to enhance current programs for other neighborhoods throughout the City. Mr. Ogden added the HELP program is very popular in the City and Staff would like to expand the program to benefit more neighborhoods in the City. He concluded he would like to create a fund that has an annual budget of $400,000; it would be an ongoing perpetual fund that would eventually generate revenue through repayments that could possibly cover Staff costs. Council member Gochnour stated she would like to have an in-depth discussion regarding the funding of the program and the tools that will be made available to Staff to facilitate neighborhood revitalization, specifically relocation of property owners. Mr. Christopulos stated that Staff will work closely with the Council to establish parameters for the program and the neighborhood revitalization project. Mr. Cooper noted eminent domain would not be used without first gaining approval from the City Council. Chief Administrative Officer Johnson stated that there are State laws in place that offer protection for property owners from unwarranted eminent domain and in order for the City to ever use the tool it is necessary to follow a very rigorous approval process. He added a super majority of the City Council, which is five of the seven members, must vote to approve eminent domain. Mr. Christopulos referenced the list of stakeholders that will be engaged in the Quality Neighborhood program:  Social Programs: lead out by City Council and Multiple Stakeholders: o United Way o Rocky Mountain Home Fund  o Utah Health and Social Services o Weber Human Services o Lantern House o Food Banks o Workforce Services/Apprenticeship Mr. Cooper noted that City Administration acknowledges that it is not possible or beneficial to shift poverty from one area of the City to another; it is necessary to address the root cause through a concerted multi-stakeholder effort that could be led by the City. The meeting recessed at 7:04 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:12 p.m. Mr. Christopulos summarized the third intervention concept, “Marketing and Delivery”:  Training and Education: code enforcement/ public improvement coordination  Campaigns: marketing to attract appropriate buyers; conversion of renters to owners by providing ownership opportunities  Opportunity: broader parameters for opportunistic projects; act on opportunities quickly through preparation  Incentives: pioneering larger scale developments; promoting higher grade renovations; establishing pioneering assistance funds; employer outreaches He also referenced parallel activities that will be continued to improve strong confidence, building and demand, and inducing development activities downtown:  12th Street Retail Corridor  Junction Expansion  Ogden Business Exchange  The Cannery on 24th Street  Transit Oriented Development on Wall Avenue  17th Street and Wall Avenue  Airport  Union Station Mr. Christopulos indicated these parallel activities will influence regional growth management policies and state level tax policies. Ogden cannot compete successfully on an unlevel playing field perpetuated by anti-urban land use and tax and transportation policies. Continued development of auto-oriented, low-density housing in Weber County will undermine Ogden’s capacity to recover even while Ogden residents themselves are providing much of the subsidy for their suburban competition. Parallel activities will also assist the School District in improving student performance by elevating the conditions that children live in. The market for potential residents who might be encouraged to live in East Central is shrunk by the perception of persistently poor performing Ogden public schools. Families who might be encouraged to put down roots in the more stable parts of East Central avoid doing so if it means having to send their children to private schools. He then reviewed the action items recommended for the three intervention components:  Targeting o Support RDA areas that will have the greatest impact on Quality Neighborhoods o Allow for use of acquisitions of deeply embedded impediments in new areas o Stay focused on East Central o Use Bright spots as Catalysts  Resource Development o Support new substandard building ordinance o Support staff changes and re-alignments o Support inspections o Increase fees to landlords of substandard units o Approve BDO lease revenue appropriation ($1.2m for 5 years initially)  Marketing and Delivery  o Adopt parameters for strategic programs and projects as necessary o Allow investment dollars to remain as investment dollars (Community and Economic Development Fund) Mr. Christopulos concluded Staff believes the following outcomes will result from the three suggested intervention concepts:  Unpack poverty from East Central  Improve residential tax base thus increasing revenue to City  Improve infrastructure through neighborhood development Mr. Christopulos and Mr. Cooper read for the record a document specifying the proposed next steps in creating the Quality Neighborhoods program: 1. Agree that the Mission is to create Quality Neighborhoods. 2. Agree that because of the importance of East Central to the Central Business District that we concentrate resources there. 3. Agree that these are our primary objectives: a. Reduce the packing of poverty in East Central neighborhoods. b. Increase property values by: i. Increasing private investment ii. Reducing rate of disinvestment iii. Improving the standards of care in homes and apartments c. Increase the ratio of home ownership in the area: i. Match the state average of 70% ii. Reduce rentals by 30% 4. Establish the following goals: a. Restructure RDA’s in East Central by pioneering the concept of a Master RDA to govern East Central. b. Declare intent to the market that we are supporting and leading the change. c. Focus on redevelopment around bright spots. d. Agree to bring ordinances in alignment to support objectives: i. Support retraining of enforcement ii. Recodification/organization of current housing ordinances under one heading to have at a minimum these elements: 1. Vacant building ordinances 2. Demolition by Neglect 3. Land Banking 4. Good Landlord 5. Boarded Building Ordinances 6. Condemnation practices clarification and procedures a. Foreclosures. e. Establish training parameters and enforcement procedures to teach effective implementation of ordinances. f. Establish parameters under which Community and Economic Development may act quickly to opportunities. g. Approve Ongoing Development Budget i. BDO five year priority of $1.2 million dollars annually 1. $1 million leveraged to provide pool for acquisitions in East Central 2. $200,000 for emergency loans in other high impacted areas of the City. 5. Engage stakeholders through a Community Communication Plan a. Stakeholder presentations i. Internal Stakeholders ii. Council iii. External Stakeholders  Mr. Christopulos concluded that his goal for the program is to create a community in which people want to live; he wants to attract more and more people that want to make their home in Ogden and that has been done with some of the programs currently in place in the City, but Staff wants to increase the pace of that movement. Council Executive Director Cook stated Community and Economic Development staff is asking that $1.2 million of BDO lease revenue be dedicated for the Quality Neighborhood program and to improve other housing funding programs and asked how much money will be left for other projects if the Council approves that request. Council member Gochnour stated she would also like to know which projects will be delayed during the five-year period that the $1.2 million is dedicated to this effort. Mr. Christopulos responded it is not possible to answer the question about what other projects will be sacrificed because he is not aware of project requests for the next five years. He noted that it is his feeling that the Quality Neighborhoods program will expand the City’s revenue base and create a greater return on investment of the BDO lease revenues. Mr. Johnson added the amount of BDO lease revenue that would be available for other investments would be approximately $2.9 million. Mr. Cooper reversed Council member Gochnour’s question and asked the Council to not focus on what opportunities will be missed, but rather where the City’s investments should be placed. Council member Gochnour stated she understands that creating quality neighborhoods is a focus of the City, but the Council is charged with balancing all competing needs in the City. The Council and Staff then engaged in a discussion regarding other private funding sources and opportunities, with Mr. Christopulos noting it is important for the City to commit to a significant investment in order to ensure that the private sector participates. He stated he cannot think of a more important project in the City that will have comparable social and economic impacts on the City. Mr. Johnson acknowledged that the decision will ultimately be left to the Council, but Mr. Christopulos is voicing the Administration’s position that they do not feel there is another project that the $1.2 million could be spent on that would create as much value for the future of the City. He added that when the Administration’s budget is presented to the Council in May, the Quality Neighborhood program will be front and center. Chair Hyer inquired as to the type of change Administration expects to see in five years if funding for the Quality Neighborhoods program is approved. Mr. Christopulos stated he anticipates there would be more new, at-market housing; less substandard housing; less trashy apartments; and removal of the impediments in the East Central neighborhood. Chair Hyer asked if there is a benchmark the City can aim for so that when the program is reviewed after five years it will be possible to measure its success. Mr. Christopulos answered yes and stated the benchmarks can easily be defined. Mr. Johnson stated it is important to invest in the neighborhoods in order to prevent loss of the gains that have been achieved in commercial districts in the City, such as The Junction. General discussion regarding other neighborhood revitalization projects in the City then ensued. Council member Gochnour inquired as to how the $750,000 in State funding for unit reduction will be factored into the program. Mr. Christopulos stated it is another resource that can be used in the East Central revitalization project. Ms. Eller-Smith referred the Council to page six of their Council packet and facilitated a discussion regarding the Fiscal Year 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Projects that are part of the Quality Neighborhoods strategy. Mr. Cooper stated the 24 th Street Village project has the highest priority, followed by the Dee School Site Development Project, East Central Public Improvements, and 2200 South and Jefferson Avenue Infill. Mr. Cook inquired as to which of the seven CIP projects related to Quality Neighborhoods program will be included in the proposed budget. Mr. Ogden answered Administration will seek to include all seven projects in the proposed budget, but it will be necessary to determine the timing and priority of the projects. General discussion regarding the scope of each of the seven projects ensued, after which Mr. Cook inquired as to how the $1 million in requested BDO lease revenue would be spent in the first year of the Quality Neighborhoods program. Mr. Christopulos responded it will be primarily used for land acquisition, opportunistic unit consolidation, and building around the existing bright spots in the neighborhoods. He commented it is imperative to have ready resources in the event that it is necessary to take quick action on a property acquisition; if such resources are not available and it is necessary to wait for approval of funding, valuable properties may be purchased by other investors who do not have plans for revitalization. Council Policy Analyst Symes reviewed the timeline for considering final approval of the Quality Neighborhoods program plan in conjunction with other planning tools, such as the Consolidated Annual Action Plan (CON Plan) and Annual Action Plan (AAP). Ms. Eller-Smith added that the proposed CIP will also be reviewed along the same timeline in order to give the Council the appropriate context relative to how the requested CIP projects will be connected to the Quality Neighborhoods program. Mr. Christopulos stated he would anticipate that continued discussion would follow the same timeline as budget discussions. Mr. Johnson stated it would be helpful to create an actual calendar specifying when certain items will be presented to the Council, such as the creation of a new redevelopment area and consideration of proposed ordinances creating the Quality Neighborhoods program. He stated that Administration staff and Council staff could work together to create a calendar. Mr. Cook asked when the Consolidated Annual Action Plan (ConPlan) and the Asset Control Area Program must be approved in order for the City to be eligible for certain federal funding sources, to which Mr. Cooper answered May 15, 2015. Mr. Cook stated that upon approval of those plans, the Council is essentially approving the Quality Neighborhoods program because the three are closely tied to one another. Mr. Johnson added that may be correct, but if the Council does not wish to approve the Quality Neighborhoods program it will be possible to amend the ConPlan and AAP as has been done for other plans in the past. Mr. Cook commented it will be necessary for the Council to have continued detailed discussion regarding the Quality Neighborhood program in order to determine their comfort level with the implications of the program. Discussion continued regarding the financial aspects of the program, with Mr. Cooper stating one option that has been discussed is potential adoption of a joint resolution specifying the objectives of the Quality Neighborhood plan; this could be a ‘stepping off’ point for the program. Council member Garner stated he is interested in investigating the program because he is very concerned about the condition of the East Central neighborhood. He added, however, that it is not possible for the City to complete all necessary work without assistance from the private sector; he acknowledged that participation by the City through the Quality Neighborhood program could be the catalyst for revitalizing the neighborhood. Mr. Christopulos agreed and stated that the City needs to provide leadership for other investors or private entities to follow; age and decay of a neighborhood will only compound if it is not appropriately addressed. Chair Hyer inquired as to the natural evolution of the East Central neighborhood if nothing were to be done about its current condition. Mr. Christopulos stated that he will provide Chair Hyer with a book, Building Great Communities [Bringing Buildings Back - National Housing Institute] that describes the natural evolution of decaying neighborhoods without intervention. He stated that he and other members of Administration have visited such neighborhoods in Detroit, Michigan and the experience was very eye-opening. Mr. Cooper added that the tax revenue being generated in Ogden City is stagnant because of disinvestment in neighborhoods. Ogden will never be able to prevent that stagnation without the development of new sources of revenue. Mr. Christopulos agreed and stated those types of efforts have been made in commercial districts of the City, such as BDO, but it is now necessary to show similar interest in neighborhoods and prove that it is possible to increase the level of value in those neighborhoods. Mr. Johnson stated the City should have raised property taxes starting in the 1980’s and that has not happened; the shortage of property tax revenues is impacting the ability of the City to do many necessary things and if it is possible to change the value of neighborhoods it will be possible to generate more revenue. Mr. Cooper agreed and reiterated the way to change the value of the neighborhoods is through the creation of redevelopment districts. Council member Gochnour concluded that the City has done great work so far at revitalizing neighborhoods and there are already many bright spots to build upon; she congratulated staff on those efforts. Council member Garner agreed and stated he has been amazed by much of the positive redevelopment that is occurring throughout the City. Council Business Council member Gochnour asked if the Council is invited to participate in the City-wide employee survey, to which Mr. Johnson answered yes. The meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m. ________________________________________ ABBIE ZAMPEDRI DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ RICHARD A. HYER, CHAIR APPROVED: May 26, 2015